Sitting of 22 March 1995

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

  Falkland Islands
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.4 am
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the Falklands, and I count myself fortunate that I was able to visit the islands in January this year. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and I received an extremely warm and friendly welcome, and it is a trip which I am certain neither of us will ever forget.
  The first thing that strikes one about the islands is the remarkably strong British character which runs through the way of life of the islanders and their approach to international and national affairs. The population of about 2,200 is almost exclusively British, and many inhabitants are fifth and sixth generation islanders. From 1883, there was uninterrupted British administration until the 1982 invasion by Argentina.
  The invasion left very deep scars, and it is clear that the people of the islands will never forget that 250 British service men gave their lives for their freedom. There is a deep distrust of Argentina among the islanders. After all, Argentina is still making public claims on the Falklands. Only a few months ago, President Menem said:
  "The Malvinas will be ours by the end of the century."
  The people of the islands do not want any formal relations with Argentina until it has given up its claims of sovereignty for all time.
  The people of the Falklands fully understand the commitment of the Government and this Parliament to their defence. Indeed, the islands provide a magnificent opportunity for training Her Majesty's forces, particularly the RAF. I attended one meeting with some farmers at which the low-flying Tornado aircraft were discussed. The farmers were asked what they thought about the Tornados zooming all over the islands at ground zero and making a lot of noise. One of them got up and said, "Thank God for the sound of freedom." That lesson might go home to one or two people in this country who whinge and moan about the low-flying training which the RAF must do if it is to maintain the peak of efficiency that we require from our armed forces.
  During the visit of myself and the hon. Member for Woolwich to the islands, we were also involved in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference of a group of dependent territories, including the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Malta, the Channel Islands and St. Helena. I dare not let this debate go by without mentioning St. Helena, because the representative from that country effectively presented his case for an airstrip on the island.
  264
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make note of that, and perhaps it will not be long before that little island has an airstrip, as it is totally cut off at present.
  Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): My hon. Friend is wrong to say that St. Helena is totally cut off because it has the excellent services of the Royal Mail ship St. Helena which, I am proud to say, is operated from my constituency by the Curnow shipping company. St. Helena is not totally cut off, although the case for an airstrip is overwhelming.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I am delighted to hear that the ship is in operation. I believe that there were considerable troubles with it. That is in no way the responsibility of my hon. Friend or anyone in his constituency. There is also a need for an airstrip on the island.
  Dr. John Marek: I support the hon. Gentleman because the Government have a role to play in the matter and they are not playing it. The St. Helenians wanted a shuttle ship from St. Helena to Ascension so that they could have a more frequent service than once every seven weeks. The Government killed that. They were looking for a service. They gave a lame excuse for not finding one and now nothing will be done for two years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister to do something about it and ensure that St. Helena has a little more communication with the outside world.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment at the appropriate time on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall return, before I land myself in trouble with you, Madam Speaker, to the Falkland Islands.
  The economy of the islands is making steady progress. The islands have been self-sufficient economically since 1983. That excludes defence. There have been massive improvements in the infrastructure—airports and roads—in the past 10 years.
  The fishing industry now brings the islands an income of £25 million a year. I was encouraged by the responsible way in which that fishing industry is run. Of that £25 million, between £4 million and £5 million goes on research and protection. Those who are issued with licences operate under strict terms and conditions. The islanders understand that they would be crazy to fish those waters out and, therefore, that the stocks must be carefully managed and husbanded.
  There are mixed feelings on the island about oil. Seismic testing has been done on an extensive basis. It is possible that test drilling will take place towards the end of this year or early in 1996. One can understand why the islanders are ambivalent about whether they want oil to be found or not. Clearly, if it is found in large quantities, it will bring massive wealth to the islands. But it will change them in a fundamental way. The type of living and society that they have had will inevitably be fundamentally changed. If oil is found we can safely say that their security will be protected in perpetuity.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that if oil is found in the Falkland Islands, which is likely, it will bring a whole set of new pressures on the Falkland Islands in relation to Argentina? Does he accept that it is therefore to be wished that the relationship between Argentina and the Falkland Islands will be

  265
  normalised before oil is found so that Argentina might be able to have some hand in the exploration, but that that can be done only when the Argentine regime withdraws its claim to the Falkland Islands?
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. As he is aware, there are contacts with the Argentine Government on both oil and fisheries. The islanders say that they do not want formal relations until the Argentines have accepted categorically that they have no case for sovereignty over the islands.
  There is an exciting future for the islands, but they face many problems. Some colleagues may have read the memoirs of Admiral Sandy Woodward, who was the commander of the South Atlantic force. He used the following words:
  "Those who die in battle always pay too high a price but in the South Atlantic as in so many other wars they died for the ideas we stand for."
  The islanders are intensely loyal to the British Crown. They want only to live in peace and freedom in the country of their birth.
  10.14 am
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has told us this morning about his recent visit to the islands together with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker). The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The debate should be a signal to our fellow British citizens in the Falkland Islands that, although they are far away, their interests are never far from our thoughts in the House.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, I have visited the Falkland Islands. My first visit was with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1981. I visited again after the conflict when the islands were celebrating 150 years of continuous British administration. I went there again two years ago at the invitation of the Falkland Islands Government. I know how important it is to Falkland islanders to see and hear their interests debated on the Floor of the House.
  On this second wonderful day of our British spring, the signal should go out to the islanders, from Stanley in the east to Port Howard in the west, from Salvador to Goose Green and to the remotest parts of the great plain of Lafonia, that the House is thinking about the Falkland Islands and debating their interests today.
  I speak in the debate as chairman of the Falkland Islands group of the CPA. I shall concentrate my remarks on future relations between the islands and the Argentine republic. I do so because I believe that good relations with Argentina are important to the future of the people of that country as well as to the islanders.
  If I look ahead to the future—to the next century, which is such a short time away—I see Argentina as a major player on the world stage. It is a major trading partner with the United Kingdom and the European Union which desires to export its goods to Europe and import many important finished products from Europe. Those developments can take place successfully only if Argentina's preoccupation with the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is put on the back burner and preferably dropped altogether. If, instead of pursuing territorial
  266
  claims to a group of islanders, Argentina concentrates on good international relations and on trade and friendship, that will be the way forward for Argentina, the Falkland islanders and the British. I want to make some comments today which I hope will contribute to that process. Some of them are difficult, but they need to be said and said on the Floor of the House.
  First, I hope that Argentina will recognise that there cannot be any basis for negotiations with the United Kingdom which will lead to the transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Much of the Argentine case for sovereignty rests on its claim that it inherited the rights which Spain abandoned. Those rights are held to be based on the papal grants of 1493 and 1494, in which Spain claimed dominion over all south America except parts occupied by Portugal. The sheer generality of such claims weakens their validity. When Spain withdrew its settlement on east Falkland in 1811, it left for all time. It has never assumed any on-going rights to the islands.
  A second argument that Argentina uses is based on geographical location. That would be valid only if the Falkland Islands were inhabited now or had been inhabited without continuous administration by a resident power.
  In any event, mere proximity—in this case about 300 miles—would embarrass many countries, including the United Kingdom, if it were to be considered as the basis for ownership. Nor can it be argued that the islands are a symbol of British colonialism and that they should be decolonised, if that implies land taken from a native people, as that was never the case in the Falkland Islands and there was no indigenous population.
  Moreover, any idea that the United Kingdom should agree to the effective transfer of sovereignty on the basis that the Falkland Islands would become an integral part of the Argentine republic, perhaps retaining its membership of the British Commonwealth, even with the supposed benefits of special status, cannot be a realistic proposition. That kind of on-going charm offensive, as it is called in the Falkland Islands, by Argentina is making it very difficult to make the progress that we all want in good relations with that huge country, which occupies so much of the south American continent.
  In some quarters, the suggestion of an autonomous status for the islands has been mooted, with special taxation and education regimes, with respect to special residence and property rights. Again I think that that is unrealistic. Any idea that may have taken root in Argentina of its flag flying in the Falkland Islands can lead only to further difficulties in what is a sensitive and difficult relationship and should not be pursued. From my knowledge of the islanders, they are not likely to give favourable consideration to any plans that Argentina may have for proposing financial compensation to each islander and property owner to persuade them to accept the transfer of sovereignty. Their sovereignty and British citizenship, which the House confirmed only a few years ago, are more valuable than any financial compensation that Argentina could offer and it is important for the Argentine Government to recognise that fact and give up their sovereignty claim, so that relations can develop and blossom in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect.

  267
  Argentina is a big country and has a big man as its president. I hope that President Carlos Menem, his Government and the citizens of Argentina, many of whom derive their origins from this country and notably from Wales, will be big enough to give up their claim and to pursue the huge advantages of trade, not only with the Falklands but with our country and the rest of the European Union.
  Let there be no doubt about it, the House will never forget the people of the Falkland Islands—our fellow British citizens 8,000 miles away, many of whom I dare say are listening to my words at this very moment. They are the people not of an old-style British colony, but of a self-governing country, and they have the right to determine their future. They will do so in two ways: by maintaining their sturdy independence, and by developing good relations with their south American neighbours by pursuing joint exploration of hydrocarbon deposits and co-operation on activities such as fishing. I say to Argentina, "Make 1995 the year to be the big country that you are and forget the claim, based on understandable emotion and feeling but rooted in the past, which offers little hope for the future."
  I share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown for the young British service men and women involved in the task force operation, but I also think of the Argentine war cemetery on the Falkland Islands, which I have seen on a number of occasions. I think of their young men who gave their lives for what they believed at the time to be right. Five hundred young men are buried in the islands and our country and the Argentine republic owe them a debt. We have a responsibility to them to find a better way of resolving our differences of opinion and of working together and finding a new future, which will be to the benefit of both countries. I very much hope that that will be possible in 1995, and that any thoughts of a transfer of sovereignty by 2000 will be banished for ever.
  10.25 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) referred to the visit that he and I made as representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I should add that, although that was a long trip—an 18-hour journey in a TriStar with a slight delay at Ascension—it took place at the end of January and the delegate from St. Helena had to leave there on Christmas eve, which demonstrates the communication problems that that island suffers, so I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  I welcome the opportunity that this debate affords to put the Falkland Islands back on the public agenda. I hope that the debate will give some reassurance to the people of those islands. Many of the islanders whom I met considered it unfortunate that they have been viewed in some quarters as a Tory trophy and I hope that the debate will provide a different perspective.
  I appreciate why the islanders feel insecure. Many were led to believe by the noises that they were hearing from British Ministers, even before the invasion in 1982, that Britain was prepared to negotiate with Argentina on sovereignty. That insecurity was undoubtedly heightened by the visit in 1980 of Mrs. Thatcher's most trusted ally, Nicholas Ridley. Many people in the islands believed that the signals given out at the time encouraged the Argentine invasion, or at least led Argentina to believe that British resistance would not be as robust as it was.
  268
  British Governments successively failed to ensure political or economic development and progress for the islands before the invasion. In 1975, under a Labour Government, my noble Friend Lord Callaghan asked Lord Shackleton to carry out an economic survey of the islands. Important though that survey was, regrettably little action was taken to implement the recommendations. Had they been implemented, it is at least conceivable, and I believe likely, that the Argentine invasion would not have taken place.
  Dr. Marek: I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that, under a Labour Government in the 1970s, when invasion was threatened the Foreign Office took immediate advance action and there was no invasion. It was only under the Conservative Government in 1982 that, because of cost cutting and efficiency savings, HMS Endurance was withdrawn, allowing the invasion to take place. Does he agree that some Governments have looked after the islands' safety and economic development?
  Mr. Austin-Walker: My hon. Friend has a valid point. The concern shown by the Callaghan Government can be identified from the Shackleton report. Its recommendations involved changes in agriculture, including land ownership, the establishment of a fishing industry, to which the hon. Member for Kemptown referred, and investigations into hydrocarbon development and tourism. Shackleton also recommended, among other things, improving communications by building a suitable airport and facilities.
  It is true that the islands never featured high on the British agenda and that there was a general impression abroad that Britain saw them as an economic drain. Ridley's visit in 1980 confirmed that view. Indeed, the Government deprived many Falkland islanders of their rights of access to British citizenship by introducing the British Nationality Act 1991. By the time that Argentina invaded in 1982, six years after Shackleton's report, hardly any of the recommendations had been implemented and the economy was in decline. The position was made much worse by the subsequent conflict, which destroyed much of the infrastructure of Stanley, including the power supply and sewerage system, but since the invasion and liberation, the islands' economy has been dramatically transformed. The Shackleton report was updated and most of its recommendations have been implemented.
  Some people have referred to the Falkland Islands at that time not as a dependent territory but rather a private company characterised by absentee landlords. That was certainly the case before the invasion. One of the most beneficial changes post conflict has been the transfer of agricultural land from expatriate landlords to local ownership, and 99 per cent. of all farms are now in island ownership. It may be of interest to some of my hon. Friends to know that the Falkland Islands Government own a third of farm land, farmed through the publicly owned Falkland Landholdings company. Agriculture has been diversified, and there is now some meat production.
  It is worth noting that, although British service personnel can visit Stanley or Camp and dine on superb local mutton, they cannot eat it on base as no abattoir meets European Union standards or Ministry of Defence requirements. The forces do not appear to have suffered ill effects from eating local produce off base, and I see no reason why the island cannot help to feed the forces on

  269
  base. Perhaps some investment in upgrading the abattoir would be of mutual benefit to the armed forces and the UK economy, as well as the islands' economy.
  Perhaps the most significant change in the economy is the development of the fishing industry. The establishment of a 200-mile limit and the creation of a fisheries conservation zone and a licensing system to control the level of fishing and conserve stocks have been of enormous success, producing a net income of some £15 million a year. We should pay tribute to the Falkland Islands Government on their success in conserving fish stocks and their policy of protecting wildlife in general.
  Other hon. Members have referred to major improvements in the infrastructure, not only the international airport at Mount Pleasant but the development of adequate power and water supplies and good educational and medical facilities, which did not exist before the invasion. I pay tribute to staff at the King Edward hospital in Stanley and was pleased to note their close links with the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich.
  Naturally, the islanders become nervous when Britain talks about the cost of maintaining the Falklands, but we do not take into account the millions of pounds that were repatriated from the islands to the United Kingdom by absentee landlords. Far from being a drain on our resources, the islands have been more than self-sufficient for most of their history. Since the conflict, great strides have been made in economic and political development and it is appropriate to pay tribute to the elected members of the legislative council. "Dependent territory" may be the Falklands' legal status, but the islands are effectively and essentially a self-governing and self-sufficient democracy. Not only is their economy in surplus but, by a policy of transferring revenue to the reserves, they now have reserve funds of some £67 million.
  There are arguments about the cost of maintaining what has been termed "fortress Falklands" and the garrison. I have seen estimates of £60 million to £70 million but those figures do not take into account what it would cost to maintain that force anywhere else in the world. No one, on either Front Bench, would suggest that, if Britain withdrew from the Falklands, the services would be reduced by the size of the present garrison. It is there to protect and give security to the islands but also to serve Britain's wider strategic interest in the Antarctic and the southern Atlantic. The real additional cost of having forces in the Falklands rather than elsewhere in the world is probably nearer to £20 million, and the Falkland Islands Government already contribute to that cost in a number of ways, including by providing housing and recreational facilities and subsidised internal travel for the forces.
  However, so long as the Argentine Government maintain their bogus claim to sovereignty, the islanders will wish to have a continued British military presence. Discussions and negotiations must be held with Argentina. The Falkland islanders recognise their geographical location and their need for economic and political relations with their neighbours. They have developed such relationships with Chile, to their mutual advantage. The islanders need to talk to Argentina about fish stocks, conservation, possible oil exploration, and
  270
  economic co-operation in the region, but such talks cannot progress satisfactorily so long as Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) set the historical claim in context. The Falkland islanders are not some oppressed and subject people under the heel of a military dictatorship; they are a free people who have openly declared their desire to move towards even greater self-government with the goal of secure independence. The islands are not some colonial territory where natives have been killed, expelled or oppressed. There was no indigenous population as the islands were uninhabited. Between the mid-18th century and 1831, there were successive British, Spanish and French settlements but, as other hon. Members have said, since 1831 there has been continual British administration, with the exception of the invasion in 1982. The islands have never been part of Argentina and the current population is almost entirely of British descent, some of it eighth generation.
  The fact that the Falklands did not have an indigenous population is in marked contrast to Argentina, where the original tribes were slaughtered by European settlers in an act of deliberate genocide. The islanders are right to query the Argentine philosophy, which suggests that killing the local population provides more secure territorial rights than settling empty islands. The right of self-determination for the Falkland islanders is a valid objective that deserves British and international support.
  Finally, I shall raise some issues on which I may be at variance with the Falkland Islands Government. While I appreciate their desire to encourage tourism, I fear that the encouragement of tourism may serve to destroy the very thing that tourists will want to see: some of the most wonderful wildlife anywhere in the world. I am also concerned about oil exploration. I appreciate the islanders' nervousness about fish stocks and fluctuations in income from that source, but in addition to the two distinct squid stocks serving markets in Europe and the far east, they have an opportunity to develop the fin-fishing industry, with its own fishing fleets from the Falkland Islands, and possibly develop processing so that the islanders can benefit from added value.
  Given the islanders' concerns about the fragility of fish stocks, the fall in wool prices, and defence costs, it is natural that they should regard oil as their salvation. I am concerned that further oil developments will threaten climate change. The burning of oil contributes 44 per cent. of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. The framework convention on climate change signed in 1992 by 160 Governments, which became law in the UK in 1994, commits Governments to reducing carbon dioxide to a level that does not threaten eco-systems or the viability of food supplies. The Spring ozone hole discovered in 1985 has continued to grow and is now a huge eclipse extending over the entire continent of Antarctica and the southern tip of south America.
  Now is not the time to search for additional oil supplies in the world. Particular problems exist with oil exploration in the south Atlantic. The Falkland Islands are a major wildlife area with a rich variety of endemic species, flightless birds, seals, fish, whales and dolphins, all of which could be threatened by oil exploration activities, including seismic testing. Other problems are extreme weather and depth of water, stretching the limits of both technology and logistics. In such remote situations, operators will probably pay only lip service to

  271
  conservation measures and, because of climatic conditions, any oil spills or operational accidents will take decades to degrade and could wipe out sensitive species.
  I realise that the islands are as far from the south pole as London is from the north pole and that the oil rigs off Shetland are much closer to the northern polar region than the Falkland Islands are to the Antarctic. But the Antarctic is the only unspoilt continent and although the Falklands and south America are outside the world park, does it make sense for oil rigs to mark the limits of that world park? I am aware that the wildlife of the islands is as much threatened by risks from oil tankers rounding the Horn, but we should look to other ways of progressing. With their wind and their ocean, targeted investment into research, and development of renewable energy supplies, the islands could become self-sufficient in energy and world leaders in creating a sustainable and affluent economy. Perhaps those countries that have oil reserves should be financed by the rest of the international community not to exploit those reserves.
  Whether the Falkland Islands Government take my view on oil exploration or not; whether they opt to exploit that oil or not; they have the right to live at peace with their neighbours, to determine their own future and to determine and pursue their own democratic way of life.
  10.39 am
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on securing the debate. It is timely, because we have not had a debate on the Falklands for some while.
  I remember vividly that Friday in April 1982 when the invasion took place. I was in the television studios of Grampian in Aberdeen when the news came through. At first, we could not believe it because it was so utterly incredible. At that time, I was foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal party, which was, in turn, in alliance with the Social Democrats. It was rather difficult being the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal party when the foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democratic party was a certain doctor, who was known for what one might describe as a muscular approach to politics. Because of the somewhat spurious reason that he had previously been Foreign Secretary, he was always called about 15 times before me. That was one of the crosses one bore.
  The House sat on the Saturday and it was a great occasion. I remember Michael Foot's brave, clear speech and the speeches of many others who struggled over the rights and wrongs involved and with their consciences. In the end, we all decided on the right path. It should not be forgotten that some people were not in favour of intervening in any way. If their argument had prevailed, the Falkland Islands would still be occupied by the Argentines and it is more than likely that the junta then in control would still be in control. Hon. Members who took that stand-back position should perhaps remember that.
  It is also worth remembering that the junta's action was popular in Argentina—practically the most popular thing that the junta ever did. That is one of the difficulties that we must face. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who chairs the all-party committee that tries to keep some interest going and takes some care of the
  272
  interests of the Falkland Islands in the Houses of Parliament, touched upon that. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right about establishing good relations with Argentina, but to imagine that somehow one can change an emotional approach quickly is a mistake. It will take a lot of time, patience and persistence to establish good relations and there is no way round that. We must make it absolutely clear that it is not our intention to give up sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Equally, we must talk to Argentina and remember that, sometimes, there is some honour in politics; although, given the way in which politics is written about these days, one would not imagine that that is so.
  At the time of the invasion, I remember that The Guardian, of which I am a great admirer normally, was not in favour of Britain taking any action. It contrasted British trade with Argentina with the fact that there were just 1,200 islanders. It argued that it was not in British interests to endanger that considerable trade and possibly offend other south American countries. There were, however, big question marks over that argument even at that time.
  Although the lady was not a lady whom I loved, she was right on that occasion. The strategy adopted was a high-risk one. Good heavens, one remembers the pictures of the Canberra, like a huge white whale in San Carlos water, which was such an easy target. That high-risk strategy, however, came off. A lot of people died and that was sad. All war is sad. I hope that we will stick by the results of that strategy.
  I readily admit that there are islands and enclaves all over the world that are the debris of empire. The French, however, have somehow managed to treat the business rather better than us. The Minister may smile disarmingly and shake his head, but consider how Martinique, Reunion and various places around the world are integrated into metropolitan France. That policy has been successful when applied to small French territories and it has been accepted by the populations involved. It should be stressed that we have a residual responsibility.
  I am sure that the Minister will speak about fishing policy in the Falklands, which, as successive hon. Members have suggested, is of much more immediate importance than any speculation about hydrocarbon resources. Two species of squid are fished around the Falklands. One is more or less confined to the Falkland waters, as defined by the 200-mile limit, while the other species is also found in Argentine waters and so is more vulnerable. I understand that Sir Crispin Tickell's team said that it thought highly of the conservation measures adopted by the Falkland Islands Government. We know, of course, that the Falkland Government do not deal directly with the Argentine Government—that is done by the British Government. An observer from the Falklands has been appointed to the joint committee, but, essentially, it is an intergovernmental committee of Britain and the Argentine. I would like the Minister to tell us how that committee is operating. Is the atmosphere within it good? Is the co-operation reached good? How does he see its future?
  The debate is a short one, so I shall not delay the House. I have said what I think. Like others, I believe that, few as the Falklanders are, they are the indigenous population. They have the right to determine their own future. In turn, we have a responsibility, inherited from history, to do all that we can to guarantee that future.
  10.47 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Hon. Members will recall that I am secretary of the British-Latin American parliamentary group and, in that context, I should like to make a few comments.
  As long as the islanders wish to remain British, we should underwrite that and they should continue to be so, not least because Argentina's claim to the islands is based on dusty legal texts going back to the beginning of the last century. Those texts are ambiguous and unclear. Lawyers could, at great expense, debate for hours who has proper sovereignty over the islands, according to dusty documents.
  We must consider the matter in the context of the Argentina of today. It is becoming successful in reclaiming its place as a nation of significance on the world stage. After all, it now has its second elected President, Carlos Menem, who has created a stable economy, which that country has not had for years. If one visited Argentina, one would discover a capital city, Buenos Aires, of maturity and culture, which makes it the greatest capital city of Latin America. It can rank with, and rival, Milan, Madrid or any of the other great cities of Latin Europe.
  Argentina has got over its 50– year nightmare of populist Peronism—a populist Peronism that has done immense damage to that country since the second world war. Let us hope that the ghost of Peronism has been laid to rest at last. We should never forget that Argentina was considered to be the great white hope of the 1920s and 1930s, a country that was rapidly coming up to take its place in the world among the great players. Peronism destroyed Argentina's chance of taking what could be argued to be its rightful place in the world. Today, Argentina is retaking its place in the world. Its armed forces have served alongside ours in various United Nations activities in the Gulf and in Cyprus, and have acquitted themselves with honour and professionalism in so doing.
  Argentina is once again showing maturity in general. What pains me, as a friend of Argentina, is that it has failed to do so in one specific way. I highlight the unwise claim of President Carlos Menem that Argentina should retake the islands, as he puts it, by the year 2000.
  If Argentina claims parity of consideration in international affairs with a country such as Canada, it should consider the example of the Canadians, and the case of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Those islands have a population of about 6,000, three times that of the Falkland Islands, and are situated only a few miles off the coast of Newfoundland, in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, yet they remain French territory. They are the only remaining territories that France holds as direct descendants of the extensive land holdings that France had in north America. Indeed, the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon have been a colony of France since 1816.
  The Canadians are not hung up about those islands. They have close relations with them. There are flights from those French islands in north America to Montreal and to various airports alongside in Newfoundland. Let us remember that those islands are only a few miles from sovereign Canadian territory, surrounded geographically by Canada, yet Canada has the maturity to live in peace alongside those people, who have a different cultural inheritance. Argentina should consider that case and learn the lessons.
  274
  If we were to follow the Argentine precept of saying that our territory extends 300 miles offshore, where would that leave us? Should we reclaim Calais and the dukedom of Normandy? Conversely, should the French claim the Channel Islands on the basis of geographical proximity? Should Venezuela claim Trinidad? Should Italy claim Malta? Should Malaysia claim Singapore? All those islands are much closer to the mainland than are the Falklands. I urge the Argentine Government to grow up and show maturity over that issue, just as they have over so many other issues in recent years.
  If Britain owes some obligation to the Falkland Islands to underwrite their entitlement to self-determination and security, surely the islanders owe an obligation to this country for the blood and treasure expended on their relief. They should do nothing to irritate the good relations between Britain and Argentina. We have long-standing relations with Argentina, those of trade and investment and indeed, those of blood ties between families in Argentina and this country. Any rhetoric from the Falklanders against Argentina, although understandable because of the wounds of the conflict, so few years ago, is extremely unhelpful. It is far better that we gradually rekindle relations between Argentina and the Falkland Islands.
  With other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I have been involved in the Argentine-British conferences. There have been four such conferences, bringing together politicians, business men, journalists and the like. Two of the conferences were held in Argentina and two in the United Kingdom. The fifth such conference is due to take place in England in September.
  I was at the last such conference in Mendoza, close to the Andes, in Argentina. I found it moving that Falklanders came to that conference. Because of the vagaries of politics, they had to enter via Chile, a friendly country, and cross the frontier to come down to Mendoza. I found it moving that Falklanders could speak to Argentines about the realities of life today. The conference was closed by an embrace between an Argentine senator, the chairman of the conference, and those visiting Falklanders.
  In the foyer of the conference centre was a large, colourful exhibition mounted by the Falklanders about the wonders of the island. I almost winced at their forwardness in staging that exhibition, but I was touched by the way in which the Argentines looked at the exhibition and came to have greater understanding.
  I gather that, at this very moment, two leading Falklanders are carrying out what might be termed a lecture tour in Argentina to speak to people. They have been to Buenos Aires, to Cordoba, to Mendoza and into Patagonia, where there are the Welsh communities in Puerto Madryn and Trelew. They have also visited Comodoro Rivadavia, the town which the Argentine air force used to provide the air link to the Falkland Islands. They are talking to the Argentines about the real Falkland Islands and the real opportunities for the future.
  I would, however, take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), because I regret the fact that British party politics were brought into the debate. I well remember the anti-Falklands rhetoric of the Labour party in the many years that have passed since the conflict. Members of the Labour party could not bring themselves to refer to the Falkland

  275
  Islands, and it was fashionable for Opposition Members to refer to them as the Malvinas. I thought that that was highly inappropriate, as did the islanders. Indeed, when the Labour spokesman for the islands first visited the islands, he was greeted with a vast piece of graffiti in 6 ft lettering painted on a hulk in Falkland sound, which, in earthy language that you would not allow me to repeat, Madam Speaker, told him to leave the islands somewhat abruptly. I do not think that there are party political marks to be scored on that matter. We want wounds to heal gradually.
  Fishing and oil cannot develop properly in that region without Argentine-Falkland Islands co-operation. The illex squid are no respecters of international political boundaries. They move from the high seas to Argentine waters to Falkland Islands waters. Unless there is co-operation, those very large factory ships from Korea and Japan will continue to hoover up the illex, to the detriment of the environment, the fish stocks and the prosperity of the islands. They need control; they need co-operation.
  The same goes for any oil that is discovered in those waters. For oil to be extracted properly, a large base is needed, for processing, for servicing the industry and for refining. If the Falkland Islands cares about its environment, it will not want those vast disfiguring industries on the islands. That is where Argentina, with its long coastline, its industry and so on could be of assistance. We want working together, co-operation and the gradual healing of wounds. That way lies the future prosperity of that important region.
  10.58 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). Indeed, I was in the Falkland Islands at the same time as the hon. Member for Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), although I was not there for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit.
  I arrived, not after an 18–hour journey on a Tri-star aircraft, but in a luxury cruise liner called the Hanseatic. I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that envy is an ugly sight, especially when one confronts it on the faces of one's two colleagues. However, as I told the hon. Member for Kemptown, come the socialist millennium, we shall all ride around in Rollers and wear top hats and drink champagne, although of course it will start with me.
  I should like to take the opportunity to record my thanks to the governor, David Tatham, and to the chief executive, Andrew Gurr, for their hospitality and for the information that they gave me. My two parliamentary colleagues stayed much longer—we were just, as it were, a ship that passed in the night, or during the day as it turned out—but I am sure that they received the same kindness and the courteous information that I found very valuable. We had an excellent working breakfast with the governor. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I was not keeping a note of the cost so we shall not be reading about it in The House Magazine.
  I have given the subject careful consideration and I agree with every speech that I have heard so far that Argentina's territorial claim to the Falkland Islands is weak and thoroughly unacceptable. I endorse the fact that
  276
  we need to continue to talk to the Argentine authorities and people. I am glad to hear that some people from the Falkland Islands are touring Argentina now and discussing matters. There seem to be many misconceptions, particularly on the part of Argentine nationals, about what is going on in the Falkland Islands.
  I was told—I do not know whether it is true—that a number of Argentines seem to think that the Falkland Islands are full of Argentines, people of Spanish descent, who are being treated badly. If that is what they believe, the matter must be sorted out. One way to do that would be to allow a greater element of tourism from Argentina to the Falkland Islands. I see that some Conservative Members are shaking their heads, and I understand that that is the attitude of many Falkland islanders. The ship, the Hanseatic, could not put into the Falkland Islands on one of its previous visits, and decided to move on through, because there were too many Argentine nationals on board. That damaged the Falkland Islands economy. I can assure hon. Members that those on board the luxury liner were paying a lot of money to be there—all except myself. There is such a thing as a free lunch and I found it on the Hanseatic—I am nothing if not honest.
  I must take issue with some of the points made by Conservative Members about the heroic way in which the Falkland Islands were recovered. Signals were sent out that could have led Galtieri and the Argentine Government to think that they could walk into the Falkland Islands and take them over, signals that were ignored by the Foreign Office and Ministers. It is reliably reported that the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, said in the Falkland Islands that thought was being given to handing over the Falklands to Argentina. That caused much concern in the Falkland Islands and may have sent the wrong signals to Galtieri. We must never forget that 255 British service men and 1,200 Argentines died in a war that could have been avoided if the Ministers of the day had been listening to the signals sent to them from the Falkland Islands, including from the governor.
  The signs of war are still present in the Falkland Islands. It was worrying to hear about kids being told where the minefields were. It is also worrying that bomb disposal personnel are still removing Argentine mines from the area. I hope that the Minister will say what further assistance is being given to the Falkland Islands authorities and what additional resources are being given to our military to continue to remove mines and make the place entirely safe.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the minefields that have been wired off in the Falklands to stop humans or donkeys straying into the area are functioning as a good nature preserve because the penguins are breeding marvellously as men and other predators cannot get into those areas? The penguins are too light to fire off the mines.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman, as he knows, has touched me on my weakest point, but even in my most conservationist mood I would not suggest laying minefields around breeding colonies of penguins to protect them. I shall think about that suggestion, but I do not think that, even in my wildest moments, I would do so. That is merely a way of demonstrating that it is an ill wind that blows no good.

  277
  One aspect that grated on me slightly was the name of one of the roads, Thatcher drive. Frankly, the fact that the Conservative Government ignored the signs at the time and the way that their popularity in this country was plummeting—Mrs. Thatcher looked as though she would be a one-term Prime Minister—meant that Galtieri's invasion of the Falkland Islands saved the Conservative party's bacon. In tribute to Galtieri for that, Mrs. Thatcher should have named Downing street Galtieri street.
  In the remaining moments of my speech I shall return to the subject of the Falkland Islands and their future. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich mentioned the enormous potential of the Falkland Islands in economic terms, especially for tourism. Wildlife, particularly sea mammals, abounds in the Falkland Islands. There are more than 20 species of great and small whales, as well as sea otters and seals. I saw penguin colonies further down in the Antarctic and the rockhopper, gentoo, magellanic and macaroni penguin populations of the Falkland Islands are prospering well—perhaps thanks to the Argentine land mines. I think that the flourishing wildlife has more to do with the sensitive conservation attitude of the Falkland Islands Government.
  There is the possibility of over-fishing in the area. We have heard much about the money earned—in 1994, £25 million—through the selling of licences by the Falkland Islands Government to various countries to fish there. Unfortunately, when I look at my pie chart I see that the greatest contributions come from Japan, Korea, Spain and Taiwan—perhaps four of the most unreliable and untrustworthy fishing nations on earth. That is why we should be careful.
  The monitoring of fishing is carried out, under contract, for the Falkland Islands by Imperial college and the British Antarctic Survey. I have heard such stories before and I am not satisfied that people so far away can properly monitor what is happening in terms of the percentage of escapes. I do not find that convincing. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will say what additional resources he might be prepared—on behalf of the Government—to provide to the Falkland Islands to ensure that licences and quotas are adhered to and that illegal fishing in the area is restrained by all possible means.
  I was worried when I heard the governor talking about the number of fur seals, particularly on South Georgia. We can see the situation developing as venal, greedy fishing fleets hoover up the sea, put pressure on the stocks and begin to destroy them. They then look round at the mammals and say that the seals are taking too much so they must wipe them out.
  I have been delighted to participate in this morning's short debate. In conclusion, I send my greetings to the regulars at The Globe pub on Stanley harbour front. I hope to join them for another beer soon.
  11.7 am
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I must be one of the few to speak in this morning's debate who has not yet had the opportunity of visiting the Falkland Islands. Had I done so, I might have had the same specialist wildlife knowledge as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  278
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on securing the debate. For one reason or another the Falkland Islands have never been far from the news in the past 15 years. In the early 1980s the reasons for their prominence were sombre. Today, with our improved relationships with Argentina, we live in more optimistic times.
  We welcome the opportunities presented by democracy in Argentina, especially since 1989. The junta that had ruled that country came to our national attention with the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but the people of Argentina had already suffered for many years. Opposition Members have been vocal in opposing the human rights violations perpetrated by the right-wing dictatorship in the years preceding the Falklands conflict.
  I live in hope that British Governments will be more consistent and vigorous in challenging human rights violations in other countries. Perhaps we will learn the lessons of history eventually, rather than allowing our arms manufacturers to trade with evil regimes only to see our own people suffer as a result at a later date.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she recall that, before the last general election, her party released a foreign policy paper which said that the Labour party believed that the future of the Falklands should be the subject of unconditional discussions with Argentina? Will the hon. Lady clarify Labour's current position and make it abundantly clear that there is no question of having unconditional talks with Argentina as that would undermine the sovereignty of the Falklands?
  Mrs. Clwyd: If the hon. Lady is a little more patient I will be delighted to clarify the situation. I make it clear that the paper was not a policy statement; it was an individual statement which did not form part of the Labour party's policy.
  The Falklands war played a major part in ending military rule in Argentina, although its intention was limited to the liberation of the islands. On an occasions such as this, it is appropriate to remember all of those, both British and Argentine, who lost their lives in the south Atlantic in 1982. In the following year the radical Government of President Alfonsin were elected, but differences over the issue of Falklands sovereignty prevented discussions between our two countries. Since the election of President Carlos Menem in 1989, British and Argentine relations have improved. The new president recognised the importance of restoring relations with Britain, especially if Argentina was to develop a satisfactory relationship with the European Community.
  Diplomatic relations were restored and a new framework has allowed the lifting of the Falkland Islands protection zone which has removed much of the tension from the area. The United Kingdom is now in the process of developing a co-operative relationship with the present Government. I know that I speak for all hon. Members when I offer my sincere condolences to the President on the death of his son last week. Carlos Menem, who was 26, was killed in an air crash after his helicopter hit overhead power lines.
  Areas of co-operation between the UK and Argentina include peacekeeping and counter-terrorism. British and Argentine troops are working side by side in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia and in Cyprus. In the trade area, British

  279
  exports to Argentina grew by 50 per cent. in 1993 and more investment opportunities are available. That is very welcome. Of course, the new relationship must also recognise that the rights and the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands are paramount.
  We desire cordial and constructive relations with the elected Government of Argentina. Provided democracy continues in that country, Labour in government will continue to talk to the Argentine Government to try to find a long-term solution to the Falkland Islands dispute. However, we emphasise that sovereignty is not an issue in current discussions with Argentina.
  The future of Britain's military presence in the south Atlantic will depend on the evolution of UK-Argentina relations. However, for the foreseeable future, we do not propose or envisage a withdrawal of the UK military presence.
  The major question about the Falklands' economic future involves oil. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House about any plans to commence drilling and what the revenue position would be if there were substantial oil finds, given the UK's considerable defence expenditure in the Falklands. The social and environmental impact of an oil bonanza would be enormous, and the matter clearly needs much thought. I share the concerns that my hon. Friends have expressed this morning. What plans are there for protecting the local environment, particularly plant, animal and marine life?
  It is in Britain's interests to be realistic about any possible oil industry development in the south Atlantic. Effective exploitation of oil would clearly be difficult without Argentina's co-operation. It is logical to assume that oil and gas would be pumped ashore to the Latin American mainland for refining, particularly as the Falklanders—who are naturally very concerned about protecting their environment—have apparently rejected the idea of any onshore activity.
  I understand that the question of oil exploration will be a matter for joint UK-Argentina discussions, which will take place along similar lines to existing dialogue on fishing and military security. Will the Minister confirm that? I ask that because, when the question was discussed in another place, Baroness Chalker said:
  "it will be up to the islanders—and only the islanders—to agree the manner in which the oil industry will develop"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 1114.]
  What is the true position? I am sure that the Minister will bear in mind the reality of the situation in the south Atlantic and will work to ensure that all diplomatic means are pursued in order to foster a healthy relationship with Argentina in the area of oil exploration and elsewhere. More specifically, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when drilling is likely to commence and precisely how the oil management team is functioning.
  The Government of the Falkland Islands have long made it clear that they wish to pay the costs of maintaining the garrison at Mount Pleasant, which at present are met by the British taxpayer. They also say that they wish to repay the British Government for the capital costs of the military infrastructure on the islands. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about those matters.
  In addition, the development of an oil industry around the islands could bring employment benefits to the United Kingdom. If the industry develops, the Government of the
  280
  islands will look to our oil supply industry for equipment provision. The wind-down of the oil industry in Aberdeen, which is beginning, could be compensated for by the discovery of Falklands oil.
  It is somewhat ironic that the discovery of oil in waters thousands of miles away could lead to employment creation in the UK when our own North sea oil revenues were squandered in paying the costs of unemployment during the failed economic experiment of the 1980s. I understand that bids for oil licences to develop the most promising offshore areas are expected to open this month. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House which UK companies are likely to be in the running for those licences.
  We are pleased to see positive developments in the areas of fishing, agriculture and land ownership taking place in the Falkland Islands and we hope that the continuance of democratic government in Argentina will allow for a gradual strengthening of co-operation between our two countries. The links between Wales and Patagonia—or Y Wladfa, as Patagonia is known colloquially in Wales—have been mentioned already. Those links have always been strong, and Welsh and Spanish are the two main languages of Patagonia.
  Finally, there is one area about which we have long been concerned. We are pleased that Argentina has offered to pay a third party to clear the 30,000 Argentine anti-personnel mines that are believed to remain in the Falkland Islands. I am sorry that we do not have more details about the mines that remain. I also pay tribute to the four British service men who were seriously injured when clearing anti-personnel mines in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands conflict.
  Mr. Bruce George: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry, I do not have time. That is yet another example of why the international trade in anti-personnel mines must be stopped. Following the Prime Minister's inadequate response yesterday on that issue, I appeal again to the British Government to support such moves when the inhumane weapons convention is reviewed in September.
  11.19 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): In the brief time available, I shall endeavour to answer the questions raised by various hon. Members. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on obtaining this important debate. He referred to his visit to the Falkland Islands with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I know from reports that it was a fruitful series of meetings and a worthwhile trip, as we also heard from my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for undertaking the visit and for taking the opportunity to inform the House of those proceedings.
  As my hon. Friend will have noticed, there is an increasing air of confidence and self-confidence in the islands. The money from fishing licences, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, has been wisely invested—both publicly in infrastructure and higher standards of health and education, and privately in increased direct involvement in fishery and in the sub-division and purchase of farms.

  281
  The Falklands is not just a very British society, but a society which is going places. A sign of that self-confidence has been mentioned in the debate—the two young islanders who have gone to Argentina to tell the Argentines politely but firmly that while the islanders want good neighbourly relations with them, that will be impossible until the Argentine Government drop their claim on their country.
  The two young islanders—one male and one female—are currently in the middle of a two-week privately funded lecture tour, during which they are telling Argentines about life in the Falklands today. Their audience will realise that the islanders are as British as Members of the House. Once the Argentines accept that the islanders are British and have their own right to self-determination, relations can be built on a normal basis.
  I am sure that, like me, the CPA visitors and others came back from the Falklands with a resounding message from the people of the islands that they are British now and they want to stay that way.
  Contrary to the perceptions of many people, the history of the islands did not start in 1982. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose expertise and commitment in this area is legendary, put it precisely in its historical context. Many islanders trace their roots there back five or six generations. It is not a transitory population; they have been there without interruption since 1833 and have chosen throughout all that time to remain under the British flag.
  As hon. Members will know, the Argentines continue to lay claim to the islands. My hon. Friend noted that their President goes so as far as to say that the Falklands will fly the Argentine flag by the year 2000, but the islanders have no intention of becoming Argentine.
  We were particularly disappointed by the decision of the Argentine Constituent Assembly, which in 1994 inserted in its constitution for the first time a clause asserting that the Falklands were part of Argentina. Assertions that the Falklands will become Argentine are highly objectionable to us and to the islanders and we reject them and will continue to do so at every opportunity.
  Despite our differences over the Argentine claim, however, our bilateral relations with Argentina on other matters have developed well since we reopened diplomatic relations in 1990. In a wise speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke with knowledge about Argentina. We now co-operate in many areas and agreements have been signed on visa abolition, cultural co-operation, investment protection and promotion, anti-narcotics and air services. A double taxation convention was initialled last year and we hope to sign it later this year.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only just enough time to make my speech.
  Our soldiers have served together with United Nations peacekeeping forces, as has been mentioned, and there is a regular high-level dialogue.
  282
  Political progress has been matched by closer commercial links. In 1994, our exports totalled £225 million. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, exports were up 25 per cent. on 1993.
  Since the resumption of diplomatic relations with Argentina in 1990, we have been able to discuss matters of mutual interest and have agreed with President Menem's Government that we should discuss such issues without reference to sovereignty. That approach works well, but when the issue of the Falklands arises, we point out to the Argentines that they should respect the wishes of the Falkland islanders.
  We have no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falklands and the right to self-determination involves respecting the wishes of the people of the Falklands. The wishes of the islanders could not be clearer, as was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. Most recently, a MORI poll in the islands, conducted at Argentine instigation, found that 87 per cent. of the islanders were not prepared to discuss the issue of sovereignty with Argentina under any circumstances.
  That figure of 87 per cent. is a stark statement of the islanders' wishes and of the fact that they wish to remain British. We are committed to the defence of the islanders' rights. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he visited the islands last April, we fought 12 years ago to sustain the wishes of the islanders to remain British, and we would do so again. There can be no compromise on that commitment.
  The maintenance of the garrison at Mount Pleasant is an expensive operation. Building the port and the airfield cost some £300 million. In addition, it costs the British taxpayers some £67 million a year. We do not undertake such expenditure lightly, but we shall not be deterred from the task. So long as there is a threat, we shall commit the forces necessary to the defence of the islands.
  Apart from defence, Britain is now responsible only for the islands' external relations. We lead in talks with their neighbours, Argentina, on matters of wider interest to the south Atlantic, such as fish and hydrocarbons—two issues that have been mentioned today.
  In all other respects, the islanders run their own affairs through their elected councillors, and they do it well. We enjoy close and fruitful relations with the councillors, both through the governor and through exchanges of visits between London and Stanley. We also liaise closely with Falkland Islands Government officials on a whole host of matters. We appreciate those contacts, as I believe do the islanders, and we look forward to them continuing.
  The economy of the islands was traditionally based on wool. That part of the economy has suffered a recent decline due to the worldwide slump in wool prices in 1990. However, the islands still produce 2,000 tonnes of wool a year and income from that source shows signs of increasing as the wool markets recover ground. The income has been sensibly invested and the return from those investments makes up another important element of the islands' economy.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the fishery. The establishment of the squid fishery has generated considerable income for the islands. The sale of fishing licences began in 1987 and has since then been the mainstay of the Falklands economy. Income until now has been from the sale of licences to foreign vessels.

  283
  Falklands companies have done well out of brokering and the provision of services, but this year has seen the first Falkland-flagged vessels entering the business. That is an excellent development and will add further to the Falklands success story. One British and five foreign trawlers have now been re-registered in the Falklands, three of them during February. The Falklands now composes one of the most significant deep-sea fishing fleets by tonnage under the red ensign anywhere in the world.
  As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) the fishery has been excellently managed. It has been commended for its approach, its concern and its technique in handling conservation issues. It is managed by the Falkland Island Fisheries Department, which I was shown round in January by the able Director of Fisheries, Dr. John Barton. It is also assisted by the valuable research facilities available at Imperial college London. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I know his commitment to the issue but I do not agree that those people's distance from the position in any way undermines their expertise, their commitment or their skill.
  In the management of the fishery, it is obviously desirable and sensible to talk to the Argentines with whom the islanders share stocks—a point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The illex, to which he referred, is a particularly fragile squid stock. A co-ordinated approach means that both countries ensure that stocks are conserved for the benefit of future generations. However, we would welcome greater transparency in Argentine licensing procedures.
  284
  On oil, the prospects for exploring for hydrocarbons in the sea bed around the Falklands are a highly topical subject in the islands. It is mildly controversial in terms of its effects. I talked it over with councillors and others when I was there.
  No one knows for sure whether there is oil or gas. The signs are encouraging, but no one knows for sure. Seismic surveys took place in 1993. The Falkland Islands Government passed legislation in November last year permitting further exploration. They expect to announce this summer that a licensing round will open later this year inviting companies to bid for areas they wish to explore. If oil is discovered, it could boost the economic prospects of the Falklands. The Government are actively helping the islanders to benefit from that prospective resource.
  There is also an Argentine dimension. The Argentines are the islands' neighbours in the south Atlantic, and one does not embark on major projects without discussing them with one's neighbours. There will be a need for co-ordination on matters such as safety, air-sea rescue and the environment. We are discussing the possibilities of co-operation with the Argentines. We would prefer to go ahead with an agreement but that is not a precondition. At the end of the day, that will be a matter for the Falkland Islands Government.
  There will be scope for the provision of equipment and services from Argentina, Chile, Brazil and neighbouring countries. The Falkland islanders also want a significant role in such support services, and we will encourage that. We will continue discussing co-operation with the Argentines, and we are of course keeping Falkland Islands councillors fully informed.
  Unfortunately, I must conclude. I am delighted that we have had this opportunity—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The Minister must conclude even before he thought that he would.

Training and Enterprise Councils
11.30 am
Mr. Alan Simpson: This debate must be placed in the context of decisions made in the 1993 Budget, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced proposals to cut £500 million from the Department of Employment's programme over the next three years. The training and enterprise councils' national council immediately announced that would inevitably lead to training cuts of between 10 per cent. and 28 per cent. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is not appropriate for hon. Members to gather in little knots while the House is sitting.
Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to my Front-Bench colleagues for emphasising the extent to which last year's cuts in training places severely damaged TEC programmes throughout the country.
One year later, the knock-on effects that are part and parcel of the Government's retreat from training are also clear. The sum of £170 million was cut from training for work projects. As a result, this year there will be 55,000 fewer adult places in that programme.
TEC budgets around the country have collapsed. Calderdale and Kirklees have lost £7.5 million, or 25 per cent. of their training budget. Staffordshire lost £7 million, Teesside lost £6.5 million, Merseyside lost £15 million, and Devon and Cornwall lost £11 million.
The Minister might argue that such cuts represent progress rather than being a retrograde step. I suspect that his response will have three themes. One will almost certainly be a repetition of the argument made by the Secretary of State for Employment in the 1993 Budget debate, when he said that
"TEC budgets are being determined by outputs—by what is achieved—rather than by what is spent."—[Official Report, 1 December 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1360.]
That is the "output, not input" argument.
The second defence will elaborate on that theme, with the claim that setting a target of 40 per cent. of trainees securing jobs marks another improvement. The third will be that 27 per cent. of trainees should be drawn from the disadvantaged—refining the quality of aid rather than stressing the quantity. The problem is not the aspirations behind targeting but the emptiness of the programme, which makes the Government's position dishonest.
We are invited to forget the cuts and to accept that there is an improved targeting regime that is the best of all worlds for the best of all programmes. Even the most cursory examination of the programme reveals that the underpinning of that argument is a lie, a folly and fraud.
I will support my claim with the example of the TEC that I know best, which is the one in Greater Nottingham. Other hon. Members will, no doubt, refer to their own areas. This year, a cut in Greater Nottingham TEC's budget from £20 million to £17 million has been announced. In Government terms, that is a mouthwatering and modest 15 per cent. reduction, but in relation to the achieved spending last year it amounts to a cut from £24 million to £17 million, which makes it a cruel and cynical 30 per cent. reduction.
286
The immediate impact on staffing is even harsher. The TEC has been compelled to reduce its staff from 75 to 47—a cut of 38 per cent. The Minister might argue that when unemployment falls, one can expect a commensurate cut in programmes that address the needs of the unemployed and long-term unemployed. In Greater Nottingham's TEC catchment area, 30,000 people are unemployed, 18,000 of whom are long-term unemployed. Unemployment in the city is 16 per cent. For those 18,000 long-term unemployed, the TEC will be able to deliver no more than 800 training places.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman paints a distorted picture because he does not take into account the Government money that is being ploughed into Nottingham through the city challenge project. Is not that going a long way to help training schemes and the people in that area?
Mr. Simpson: I will deal with that point later, but Nottingham's experience of other Government training programmes is that increasingly they are turning into a dog's breakfast of non-co-operation between Departments and cynical manipulation of funding, to deny the city money for bids that are among the best in the country. I will address the role of civil servants in that cynical process of stealing money from meretricious projects.
TECs were flagged up as the centrepiece of Government training initiatives. If one focuses only on the long-term unemployed in Nottingham, one sees that at the current rate of funding it will take more than 22 years for this year's long-term unemployed to gain access to a training place. It may seem capricious of the Government to approach training in such a way that many long-term unemployed are likely to have an entitlement to retire before they are given a right to training. That is hardly the brightest picture of the dynamic market economy that the Government like to paint.
The Government may argue that although there are many long-term unemployed in Nottingham, they are not among the most disadvantaged in the country, but we must look a little closer. Of the gross unemployment figure, 48 per cent. of long-term unemployed in Nottingham are Afro-Caribbean. The city is home for 37 per cent. of all ethnic minority communities in the east midlands. A study of disadvantaged areas in Nottinghamshire showed that, of all of the wards in the county, 14 of the worst areas were in the city itself, in the area covered by Greater Nottingham TEC.
It may be argued that Nottingham is part of an underlying upward trend and that people will find their own prospects of employment. I refer those who want to hide behind that argument to the 1994 urban trends report of the Policy Studies Institute. In relation to employment change over the past decade, it says:
"Leicester and Nottingham … suffered the general decline in the proportion of full-time employees but did not share in the general increase in part-time employment—in Nottingham it actually declined."
That is hardly a picture of a dynamic expansion of work opportunities.
What about discrimination? Every TEC and trainer in the country says that all the evidence shows that the area of greatest resistance in taking on the long-term unemployed is among small and medium-sized enterprises. Those enterprises are not necessarily being run by people who are deeply prejudiced. It may simply

287
be that, in terms of this leaner, fitter Britain, many of them are running on the bare bones. The problems—getting the long-term unemployed back into work—which those enterprises and trainers understand, require considerable personal and financial support. If that is so, one must devote additional resources where there are a disproportionate number of small firms in an economy.
In the Greater Nottingham area, some 15,000 enterprises offer employment on different scales, but 93 per cent. of them employ fewer than 25 people. That is the marketplace in which the long-term unemployed must be placed if they are to have job and career prospects. The support needed to deliver stable and workable training programmes for those people is greater because of the propensity of the city to be dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises. Just when we have the greatest problems and the biggest backlog of difficulties in meeting the needs of the long-term unemployed, the training budget is cut by 30 per cent., and support and staff by 38 per cent. That nails the lie to the Government's argument about a serious commitment to training.
The farce is that underfunding of training turns programmes into cruel jokes. Nationally, we know that 58 per cent. of youth trainees leave training schemes early. Fewer than half are in full-time work. Only one in 20 gets part-time work, and one in two leaves without a qualification. Instead of investment to raise standards and qualifications, cuts are made, which turn farce into fraud. I say that because there is great pressure among TECs simply to look at the outcomes that are required and to tailor the "masquerading" of training into meeting targets that simply deliver the cash. We know already that training providers have fiddled qualifications to secure funding. We also know that there is great pressure—it is recognised in the TECs themselves—to train only the trained. If the trigger point for funding is a qualification, there is growing pressure to look for people who already have qualifications, who can be put through quickie courses to meet the next stage of a national vocational qualification, thereby releasing money.
The problem is that that creates a cynicism gap in the programme. That gap is not being filled by genuine training schemes for people with special needs, who face long-term prospects of unemployment. We know that the least qualified—the most vulnerable people in the work force—have extra needs that can he met only by extra costs and extra support. Instead, TECs will he under pressure to provide short courses that lead to junk jobs. What we will see—and I have talked this through with the TECs—is that a number of employers will come up with offers for TECs to meet the target needs by offering the most cynical employment contracts or opportunities afterwards: short-term contracts, irregular hours, perhaps even finding ways of getting zero-hour contracts recognised as a job without work. The most vulnerable people outside the work force will be cynically exploited simply to trigger the cash to keep training programmes on the road.
In many ways, the new rules also reward underactivity and underperformance. The TECs that have spent their budgets on delivering training are precisely the ones that are most vulnerable to cuts. They have no reserves left to cushion cuts from one year to the next. Nor do they have the cushioning needed to do precisely what the Government often ask them to do: to get into partnership funding, whereby they have to provide matching moneys.
288
This is particularly important in relation to European funding. Without a cash reserve, a TEC will not be in a position to offer matching funding as part of the more generous offers of additional project-based activities, to which the Government will often lay claim. The TECs that are doing the most will be the most vulnerable to punitive cuts in their funding.
This country is systematically short-changing the unemployed. The average time that an adult receives on a skill-training course in the United Kingdom now amounts to just 20 weeks—the shortest in Europe. It does not surprise me that we see stories in the papers about hospital porters being asked to help in hip operations. We are systematically short-changing ourselves not only in the skill training that we offer but in the job security and the proper staffing needed to run the services in which we are supposedly training people to work.
The United Kingdom is also the meanest of funders around Europe. If we compare the United Kingdom, France and Germany, we can see that, in relation to labour market training as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom spends 0.14 per cent., France, 0.39 per cent.—two and a half times more than the UK—and Germany, 0.55 per cent., which is four times as much as the UK. For the entirety of its training budgets, the United Kingdom spends 0.5 per cent, France, 1 per cent. and Germany, 1.6 per cent. This country spends less than half the average for all EC and EFTA countries on training programmes. It is little wonder, therefore, that the chief executive of the Greater Nottingham TEC should write to the Secretary of State, warning him that he is in danger of creating two-tier TECs, where only those that have cash reserves can prosper, whereas those that do not, but have been delivering decent training programmes, are in danger of being driven to the wall.
This country needs a complete rethink of our approach to training the unemployed. First, we need a commitment from the Government that they will restore funding to training programmes. I say that at a time when the country knows, even though the Government will not admit it, that the Chancellor sat on a windfall bonanza income last year when constructing his Budget. Rather than investing that money in training the unemployed he has been stuffing it in his pockets to facilitate a "bung" Budget before he makes a dash for the next general election.
Secondly, we must restore local accountability. Elected representatives of local authorities must have a say in the shaping of local training programmes. The transfer of responsibilities to unelected civil servants has been a disaster.
Thirdly, bureaucracy must be reduced. The delivery of training is now in a dreadful mess, not only in my area but throughout the country. The granting of arbitrary powers to various civil servants, allowing them to create mayhem, is a cynical joke.
I am currently dealing with the case of a young person who is on a training course to become a joiner. The college says that he will pass with flying colours; the Benefits Agency has supported him. Unfortunately, the Department of Employment has subjected him to considerable pressure, telling him that unless he takes a course in office skills his benefits will be cut. When he asked about that course, he was told that it mainly involved answering the telephone. He pointed out that he was training to become a joiner and did not envisage spending much time on the office telephone, but the

289
Department was adamant, and has now reduced his benefit entitlement because he would not go on the office skills course. There are similar absurdities throughout the country: I am sure that other hon. Members can give examples, both absurd and tragic, of the way in which the system is falling apart.
Finally, we must restore a system in which local needs are targeted. Areas must be able to identify realistic job opportunities—examining the specific needs of their labour forces and labour markets—and find ways of tackling the backlogs caused by discrimination and disadvantage. The system must be locally accountable, rather than being run by unaccountable civil servants and bureaucracies.
I cannot describe my anger at the way in which the country and the Government have treated the unemployed. Those who currently have almost nothing can expect to receive even less.
This debate is taking place at a time when the press seems obsessed with the notion of "outing". Let me tell the Secretary of State and the Government that they themselves cannot expect to remain immune from such "outing" much longer. They have produced a succession of policies that have amounted to little more than a belief in getting their leg over the long-term unemployed: they certainly have not been giving the unemployed a leg up into decent jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's language is less than elegant. May I ask him to rephrase what he has said?
Mr. Simpson: Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the Government's policies have been less than helpful in returning the long-term unemployed to secure and prosperous jobs. Before too long the Government will find themselves being judged by the public: they will be "outed" in the most responsible way that I can imagine—at a general election, when the public will "out" the lot of them.
11.53 am
Mrs. Angela Knight: My area contains the Southern Derbyshire TEC, and abuts the area containing the Greater Nottingham TEC, about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has spoken. I must tell him that I do not share his pessimism about training and the job that TECs do: I believe that TECs do an excellent job, and my belief is confirmed by the experience of all who are involved with Southern Derbyshire TEC.
It is not only the Government's function to fund training; it is the function of employers as well. When I ran a company, before the advent of TECs, we organised and paid for the training ourselves.
Ms Harriet Harman: Does the hon. Lady support the cut of nearly £2 million in Southern Derbyshire TEC's budget in a single year? Does she approve of the fact that training in her area has been cut by 9 per cent. in one year?
Mrs. Knight: I am aware of those figures, and I shall deal with the hon. Lady's points shortly. If she will restrain herself for a moment and allow me to deal first
290
with Greater Nottingham TEC, I shall deal with Southern Derbyshire TEC a little later—and perhaps reveal another set of figures that may prove an eye-opener and make the hon. Lady wish that she had not intervened.
Who pays for training, who receives it and who benefits from it? Those issues involve a group of people and organisations. Let me inform the hon. Member for Nottingham, South that it used to be common for companies to pay for their own training; the advent of TECs has considerably assisted both those companies and the people who require training—people who are either working for the companies concerned or trying to improve their skills in order to enter the jobs market.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of courses. He should hesitate before deciding that long training is good training. When I was involved in training, I found that one of the difficulties was persuading young men, in particular, to remain at the college for any length of time. They wanted to learn their skills as quickly as possible, leave the college and the day-release courses and return to full-time work. Making courses too long does such people a disservice; flexibility is the key word. Training must meet the abilities and aspirations of those involved.
Before the debate, as my TEC is adjacent to that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, I looked up the most recent report of Greater Nottingham TEC. The chairman introduced the report with a statement that strikes me as considerably less pessimistic than what we have heard this morning:
"As Nottingham starts to emerge from recession, GNTEC has streamlined and rebuilt its operation … we now have the right team and the right partners to position Nottingham as one of the country's foremost regional centres."
That implies that the chairman is looking ahead positively.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: The hon. Lady knows a good deal about the Greater Nottingham area, and about training in the east midlands generally. She has quoted the chairman of the Greater Nottingham TEC. Does she subscribe to his view that a £3 million cut in the budget was a retrograde step, and that the Secretary of State for Employment should reinstate the former budget?
Mrs. Knight: That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South gave a different set of figures; perhaps he and his hon. Friend should discuss the matter.
Let me point out to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that unemployment is falling substantially in both Nottingham and Derbyshire, which has benefited all who live and work there. Both TECs are becoming involved with other organisations, and gaining access to funds from organisations outside Government—and, in the case of the Greater Nottingham TEC, funds from Europe. Employers are funding more training in the areas. We should consider the funding of training in a wider context and examine the consequences of training, the way in which people benefit and the number of jobs that are being created in both our areas. Again, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that those issues are touched on throughout the Greater Nottingham TEC report, as is the number of long-term unemployed people whom the TEC is getting back into work. The figures are an excellent recognition of the quality of its work, the sort of funds that it is levering out of organisations now and the sort of funds that it is hoping to lever out in future. He and I are looking at something of a success story across our part of

291
the east midlands, with that region being hailed as the strongest-growing region in the country. It is a significant success story, to which the TECs are contributing.
Mr. Simpson: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would simply accept yesterday's statement by Greater Nottingham TEC. It states that the cuts that it is having to deal with lead, first, to a serious undermining of the quality of training that it feels it can deliver, secondly, to the almost complete erosion of the basis on which it is able to lever additional funding because of the lack of reserves, and, thirdly, to the most enormous questions being raised about the partnerships that it is able to enter into with the private sector in relation to special needs training of people who have been out of the work force the longest.
Mrs. Knight: I too have a concern about partnership funding and the way in which that helps local economies. I am aware that Southern Derbyshire TEC did very well in obtaining additional funds to assist specific groups, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it had exceeded its targets, whereas Greater Nottingham TEC was not as well able to perform against its targets and, therefore, did not receive the additional funding that it needed for those priority groups. In relation to those specific groups, the message to Greater Nottingham TEC is perhaps that it should consider what Southern Derbyshire TEC did to benefit from its experience of how to target those groups.
On funding, clearly I cannot comment on a letter that the hon. Gentleman has seen and that I have not, but I am aware that, in the coming year, one of the key objectives of Greater Nottingham and Southern Derbyshire TECs is to obtain funds from other sectors and not just to look at Government as the one and only source of finance for training. They are not the only source. We must get away from looking down that narrow road and should consider the broader field. Certainly, small, medium and large companies outside Government consider training in a broader way, as do the further education colleges. We must also do that and accept that, as unemployment falls, funds to help the unemployed will tend to change accordingly.
Training is a partnership for all the people involved and is not just something for Government. I recognise that the Government put substantial funds into training and a great many people have benefited from that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in mine.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman would excuse me, I intended my remarks to be brief. I have taken three or four interventions. I wanted to speak about Southern Derbyshire TEC rather than Greater Nottingham TEC. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for any hon. Member to challenge another as to whether they do or do not give way.
Mrs. Knight: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will accept what I have said and enable me to concentrate briefly on Southern Derbyshire TEC, which covers a number of local authority areas, of which Erewash is one.
292
Southern Derbyshire TEC has, in many respects, had many difficult jobs to do. The region's economic profile is usual for the east midlands, but perhaps unusual for the country. Southern Derbyshire's industrial history is strongly linked with many traditional industries. The region has been at the forefront of transport development. The names of Rolls-Royce and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. are renowned world wide. Rolls-Royce has been feeling very much the competition from around the world in its field of expertise. As hon. Members well know, ABB has felt the draught of competition as well. But there has been substantial investment in the region's traditional industries, which balances the equation somewhat. Toyota built a £700 million production plant for cars. It announced last week that it was going to build another massive car plant in the region. Although there has been a shift away from traditional industries, and employment has fallen in those industries as a consequence of technology improvements, investment has continued in the region's manufacturing industry—to such an extent that manufacturing still employs about 41 per cent. of all people in jobs in the region. The number of people in the mining industry is relatively small, but the number in the services sector is starting to increase.
The region's employment pattern shows marked differences from national trends. The people employed in the engineering and textiles sectors amount to 22 per cent. of people working in the region, compared with a national total of 11 per cent. As with Nottingham, many of those people are employed in small businesses. The latest calculation showed that 83 per cent. of firms employed fewer than 10 people, which illustrates small business' powerful economic role, both in southern Derbyshire and elsewhere.
Southern Derbyshire TEC has been up and running for about four years, but people in the region still ask what the TECs do. One of the reasons why that question is asked is that the use of the word "TEC" is synonymous with so many of the old technical colleges, but another reason is that the TECs' involvement is wide and various—it takes place through so many other organisations—so it is not necessarily known that they are involved in a particular area.
Southern Derbyshire TEC has been involved in training people from school age right the way through to the older age group. It has been involved in setting the region's economic revival on a sound footing with such developments as Derby Pride, which is similar to the Nottingham city challenge scheme. It has been involved in the single regeneration budget and in putting the Derby and Derbyshire chamber of commerce on a sound footing. The TEC, therefore, has a wide involvement in the local economy; it is there not only actively as a trainer, but as a force to move and shake. But the worth of an organisation is not measured just by calculating how much is put into it. It must be measured by what comes out as well. The hon. Member for Woolwich is agitating dreadfully. I shall give way.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that, in the region covered by Southern Derbyshire TEC, less than one third of the people completing training find their way into full-time employment?
Mrs. Knight: I am slightly surprised at that. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, out of the 82 TECs in the country, Southern Derbyshire TEC comes second in

293
helping unemployed people find jobs. Last year, it helped some 2,000 people find work and the figure is rising substantially. When considering some of the other criteria against which a TEC's performance is judged—what is happening to the people whom it trains—we find that Southern Derbyshire TEC comes sixth in helping young people obtain qualifications. Last year, 1,340 young people gained qualifications. That information is from Southern Derbyshire TEC. It is more accurate than the information he received from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Opposition spokeswoman on employment.
I give this TEC the credit which does not seem to be coming from Opposition Members. All the hard work that it has done means that, overall, it is in 15th place among TECs. It is often common for people to think of Derbyshire solely in terms of the green and pleasant land of the Peak district, but southern Derbyshire is not like that. It is far more of a traditional industrial region. The Salford index measures the quality of life in the regions covered by TECs. Against that index, Southern Derbyshire TEC ranks about 30th, so it is placed just above half way in terms of the quality of life in the region. For it to be in 15th position when it comes to ensuring that those whom it trains find jobs and go on to do what they want to do is a creditable performance of which it is justly proud. It helps the people in the area.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Knight: I intended to make a few brief points about Southern Derbyshire TEC. I have been talking for about 15 minutes and have taken half a dozen interventions. Our constituencies are a long way apart and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to continue with Southern Derbyshire TEC.
Another aspect of the work of TECs, which has not really been touched on so far, is helping new firms get off the ground. That is fundamental to growing jobs in an area. The Government do not create jobs by waving a magic wand. The job creators of the country are businesses. The figures provided for me by my local TEC show that in the last year for which it has records—about six or seven months ago—it helped to start more than 400 firms, which is twice the number it got going two years previously. It monitors those firms to see how it can continue to assist them and keep them growing. Helping new firms get off the ground and encouraging existing companies to grow is fundamental to ensuring a strong economy and more jobs for the people of southern Derbyshire.
The recent unemployment figures for the area covered by Southern Derbyshire TEC show a substantial reduction. In my area, unemployment has fallen by nearly 16 per cent. compared with this time last year and by about 20 per cent. since 1992. There are similar falls in unemployment in the other constituencies and local authority areas covered by the TEC. That shows how jobs are being created in the area and how well the TEC is performing in training people to take up the jobs that are provided.
Another aspect of the TEC's work is the Investors in People award, which was touched on earlier. It has received the extra cash for good performance, particularly
294
when it exceeded targets for finding jobs after training for people with disabilities and for people from the ethnic minority community. I emphasise the phrase "exceeded targets for finding jobs after training" because that is what training is all about.
I make two points relating to the Southern Derbyshire TEC and to TECs generally. First, there was an amalgamation of Southern Derbyshire TEC with the Derby and Derbyshire chamber of commerce. That amalgamation was necessary because the chamber of commerce was in financial difficulties, which was not to the benefit of the business community and the long-term prospects of businesses in the area. However, I am concerned about amalgamations in general.
I hope that any proposed amalgamation between a TEC and a chamber of commerce is considered carefully. The independence of a chamber of commerce is vital for the business community. The jobs done by TECs and by chambers of commerce are not wholly separate from each other, as they obviously cross over at the edges. However, I do not think that they will benefit from being wholly intermingled. There may be areas such as mine where it is necessary to do just that, but as a long-term policy for the business community, as represented by the chambers of commerce in this country, it would not benefit them especially well.
My second point relates to the ability of partnerships set up by the TEC. The business link is now starting to move well in the local area, as is the link between schools and companies and the involvement of lecturers with businesses. Those areas are all showing improvement and they require money. I am concerned that we are looking at capping the amount of surpluses that a training and enterprise council can generate. For example, the allowable profit margins on TEC programmes are capped at or around 7.5 per cent. I am not advocating dependency on the Government for those economic partnerships because I recognise that there must be an all-round contributory effort. However, in the early years of economic partnerships in particular, and the other partnerships that develop and assist in an area, there may be a need for more financial assistance than at later times. I hope that it will be possible at some time to look again at those allowable profit margins and at some of the constraints on TECs relating to their involvement in economic development in an area. By looking again at those rules, perhaps we will continue to assist job creation, which I am sure is what everyone wants to see.
12.15 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I have about five minutes, which is not long in which to accuse the Government of, at the very best, a lack of financial rectitude, and, at worst, of fraudulent trading in relation to South Thames TEC. My argument is that the Government should fund South Thames TEC and every other TEC that finds itself in similar difficulties to discharge the debts that they incurred up to such time as creditors were put on positive notice that the TEC would not be able to discharge its obligations.
The Government set up South Thames TEC in 1991 and it went bust just before Christmas 1994 with debts of several million pounds. For instance, it owes over £800,000 to my local Lambeth college—5 per cent. of its budget. It owes money to many local schools, including primary schools, as well as to organisations for the

295
disabled and Age Concern. It left in the lurch 6,000 trainees when it went bust. As I have said, the Government should meet those debts until such time as people were put on notice about those losses.
I accuse the Government of acting in the sort of way that deserves to put them on the BBC programme "Face the Facts". I accuse them of, in some ways, acting no better than those who run disreputable phoenix companies and conmen and spivs who use the method of a limited company to deprive creditors of what is due to them. Can one imagine what would happen if ICI or one of our leading banks was to wholly fund a subsidiary company, as almost the sole source of its funds, and let that company go into liquidation leaving the most vulnerable people to pick up the pieces and face the debts?
What is more, the Government have not simply walked away from this. If there is any wreckage left in the shipwreck of South Thames TEC, the Government are grabbing it as the preferred secured creditors of that organisation. That is absolutely disgraceful. It is an example of a complete lack of financial rectitude.
The matter is even worse than that. I believe that the Government are liable for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which makes any person who is responsible for creditors being defrauded responsible for those debts in full. Why do I say that? The Government said that this was a private enterprise matter, run by private enterprise. It was not. The director, Mr. Hansen, was a former civil servant. He was in my private office when I was a Minister at the Department of Employment.
When the financial director left in August 1994 the Government knew that the TEC was in difficulties. They knew from their financial inspections between August and November 1994 that something was seriously wrong. However, they went on funding the body completely, apart from a little money from the European Union, and holding it out as discharging the Government's responsibilities. If anybody else does that, it is an act of fraudulent trading. It involves giving comfort and support to an organisation from which vulnerable people and groups—primary schools and organisations for the disabled—can derive the reasonable conclusion that the debts are being met. For the Government to grab every penny that was available from the shipwreck is disgraceful. I suppose that it is privatisation, but who would buy a second-hand policy from this Government which came originally from the Adam Smith Institute? I do not believe that any other responsible organisation would have behaved in that way.
The Government should fund the debts incurred for this reason. The TEC was not simply a trading organisation, but an organisation formed to discharge the Government's functions. One of the purposes of a Government is to look after children when they leave school, and also to educate and train people to sustain the economy. The Government have walked away from the wreckage they have created by allowing a TEC to be run badly when it was known to be in a high-risk area, and they disguised its demise in the run-up to the Christmas holiday.
I do not make the allegations of fraud, mismanagement and a lack of financial rectitude against the Minister personally, as he has come here to carry the can. I do make those allegations against the Government. I know of no creditor, from the South London Press to Lambeth college, who believes that the Government should leave
296
people stranded as they have done. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government accept the same degree of responsibility for this fiasco as any other reputable organisation would accept for a subsidiary.
12.20 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: There is a fairly straightforward approach to measuring a TEC's performance in relation to its funding. We can measure how successful it has been in providing training which leads to new skills and in helping to tackle long-term unemployment.
To date, the results are disturbing. Nearly half of all those who have taken training for work schemes through TECs remain unemployed some six months after leaving the schemes. Nearly 60 per cent. of those leaving training for work schemes leave without achieving the minimal qualification. The root of the problem is not so much the management of TECs as the funding policy on which they are supported. Hon. Members may remember that the present funding system was described to the Employment Select Committee by Professor Bennett of the London School of Economics as "daft".
For example, demanding that TECs make surpluses from training programmes to fund enterprise schemes for small businesses was a classic case. The effect of that was to encourage TECs to cream off those people who were easier to train, thus achieving their target outcomes. At the same time, those with special training needs—those who, I would argue, perhaps deserved greater attention—were losing out, and they continue to lose out.
The danger is that the swingeing cuts that are planned will provoke mass resignations from business representatives unless the budget policies are looked at again and, I hope, reversed. Business people will become disaffected if the only function of TEC boards is to dispense state funds to pay for training schemes for the unemployed. We must remember that the central mission of TECs was that they should be employer-led bodies for economic regeneration, and that central mission will be fundamentally compromised without adequate funding support for the innovative local initiatives that they should be equipped to produce.
I shall give a quick example of my local TEC in Hampshire, the area with the highest dependence on the defence industry of any region in the country. The Hampshire TEC must develop schemes for diversification in the local economy, and has been given the task to help the workers who, in many cases, are highly skilled but who need to diversify their talents into other industries. The TEC is working well within its own abilities and resources, but it is constrained by a lack of support and, perhaps, understanding from the Government.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is not it a fact that, like my local TEC, the hon. Gentleman's local TEC is deeply demoralised by the cut in enterprise allowance, because that stopped it from helping new businesses to start? The TEC wanted to help people to start their own business and to go on to employ other people.
Mr. Chidgey: I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's TEC, but that is certainly a key problem. There is a need for innovation in funding and a need to look beyond the immediate task of dealing with the long-term unemployed. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same lines.

297
Given that background, it is hardly surprising that the Secretary of State for Employment reportedly said:
"Some TECs lack credibility with the business community".
That is an important issue which must be addressed by the Government.
The Government continue to pursue funding cuts, with another £280 million forecast to be lost in the next two years. At the same time, funding for youth training and the modern apprenticeship schemes—vital investments in our future skills base—will barely keep pace with inflation.
The Government are proposing an increase in the percentage of training for work leavers gaining jobs from the present 36 per cent. to 50 per cent. in 1997–98, and that is a welcome, if modest, aim. We must question what appears to be the prime aim, which is reducing the average cost per job from about £6,500 to £4,500 over that same period. Improving efficiency of training for work programmes is clearly a responsible target for any Government, and I would endorse that, but withdrawing money that is saved from the budget instead of reinvesting it in better-quality high-skill training is not responsible.
British companies are already constrained by skill shortages as the economy is improving. With the United Kingdom facing widening skills gaps when compared with our competitors, it is the worst example of short-sighted short-termism not to invest efficiency savings from the improvement in the performance of TECs in the development of the high-skill base which is essential to our future prosperity. The drive for lower unit costs brings further threats to training quality.
Clearly, we all agree that the performance of TECs must improve, but without some form of regulatory system, the pressures of payment by results can encourage abuse. We have heard examples of that, and no doubt those pressures will lead to an increase in that abuse. There may be a temptation to take short cuts, and the potential for corrupt practices also increases.
There is widespread concern within industry and commerce about the validity of some of the national vocational qualification assessment techniques, and a reduction in funding will only heighten those concerns. Nothing can make that point more effectively than the Government's own forecasts for NVQ outcomes. In 1994–95, the estimated proportion of leavers of the training for work schemes who will have NVQs is 39 per cent. That is hardly a figure to get excited about, but the forecasts for 1995–96 and 1996–97 show that the proportion will fall from that low figure of 39 per cent. to some 30 per cent. in each of those years.
The vast majority of those NVQ qualifications will be in levels 1 and 2, neither of which is an intensive, high-skill qualification. NVQ level 1 is the equivalent of five GCSEs at a modest level, and NVQ level 2 is slightly better. The Government are predicting that, in the next two years, fewer than one in three of those leaving the training schemes will achieve a skill qualification of the standard of an average secondary school leaver. By no stretch of the imagination can that programme be described as equipping the country with the skills base that we need to compete in the world market. In that context, Professor Bennett was absolutely right to describe the TEC funding policy as "daft". The
298
Government's failure to reinvest efficiency gains from TEC budgets in high-quality training is selling the country short.
I shall return briefly to the effectiveness of TEC funding in tackling long-term unemployment, which is a key area of the Government's policy. The economy is held back by mass long-term unemployment. Throughout 1994, the very long-term unemployed represented close to 40 per cent. of the overall total of unemployed. That is a higher proportion than at any time in the previous four years. There is no clear sign of a significant reduction in that percentage in the coming year. Therefore, the improvement in the economy has made little, if any, difference to the long-term unemployment quota. That demonstrates that long-term unemployment will not be tackled by market forces alone. We need sound, properly funded policies to develop and extend the skills base.
Some of the Government's policies have been successes, and I welcome and endorse those. The workstart pilot programmes have shown remarkable success, with employers taking on long-term unemployed people into permanent jobs. However, instead of concentrating resources and targeting cost savings on those programmes, the Government are starting more pilots. From my correspondence with the Department, it is clear to me that the Government's main aim is to reduce still further the costs of training the long-term unemployed and equipping them for meaningful employment. The schemes are training on the cheap. All the while, the long-term unemployed continue to represent some 40 per cent. of the total quota of unemployment.
There are ways in which we could tackle that problem. We could invest in benefit transfer systems to encourage employers to give meaningful training to the long-term unemployed to make them productive and worthwhile employees who can be taken on as an asset to a company. Long-term unemployment is a major challenge to TECs, but without more support and flexibility, they will lose the battle. All the while, each long-term unemployed person costs the economy £9,000 a year in benefits paid and taxes forgone.
TECs' reliance on short-term funding and the requirement that they comply with central Government restrictions discourages long-term planning and investment in high-quality training. TECs need to be restructured so that local accountability can be improved. Industry needs to continue to play a lead role. Companies must be encouraged to take responsibility in identifying and meeting local training needs, but TECs must also be more broadly based to draw in the support of small as well as large businesses.
TECs need to work in partnership with local authorities and educational and community interests. It is important to note that many small firms involved with TECs now have had no experience in training. They need to be involved to develop the knowledge and skills that go with training employees. TECs must reflect the requirements of small firms in a sector of our economy which has the greatest potential for job creation. TECs need to develop closer links with chambers of commerce to minimise duplication. They need to consult more widely with unions and local authorities.
TEC boards should be more broadly based. Members should be brought in who represent a wider section of the business community, local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector. We need to get a local dimension in

299
our TECs. They need to have the flexibility to meet local needs. Ministerial controls on TEC funding need to be lessened so that we have TECs which are more responsive to local requirements.
We need to remove the anomalies in the financial support of different groups. Above all, TECs need rolling funding. They need to be enabled to plan for longer-term targets. They need to be able to concentrate on the provision of skills training for those in employment—one of their fundamental remits—and on giving support to new and growing businesses.
12.33 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I wish briefly to reinforce the position of the Greater Nottingham TEC. Let us look at the headline figures. In the current year, the gross budget is £24 million and the core budget is £20 million. Next year, it will be £17 million. At the lowest, that can be classed as a cut of £3 million or 17 per cent. That is on top of a cut in the previous year of £3.2 million or 15 per cent. Put another way, the budget of Greater Nottingham TEC has fallen since 1 April 1993 by 34 per cent. Unemployment has fallen, but by only 15 per cent.
I am worried about the cuts, which will affect the Greater Nottingham area. I fear that the business start-up scheme will consist of counselling only and that no finance will be available. Some £1 million has been lost to new small businesses—a sector which I thought that the Government were trying to encourage. I am particularly unhappy that the local initiatives fund will not continue next year. That brings me to my key point. TEC budgets across the country were cut from a peak in 1993–94 of £1.97 billion, by 12 per cent. in 1994–95 and by 21 per cent. in 1995–96. Budgets are being cut, but TECs are doing more. As other hon. Members have said, outputs are increasing. The consequence is—this is the contradiction for TECs—that although they are doing more for less money, their flexibility and ability to meet local needs is handicapped and hampered.
If we want TECs to be engines for change, to add value to the local economy and create jobs, we have to give them more flexibility. There are ways in which that could be done without spending any extra money. TECs ought to be allowed greater virement—perhaps up to 10 per cent.—between budget heads. There should be a refocusing on European social fund contributions and how they are handled. ESF money comes in at both national and local level. There is often confusion. If we refocus that money at local level, we could obtain extra added value. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
We ought to work towards a single training for work budget. At present, the training budget and the allowance budget are separate. They are not both managed by the TEC. Integration could provide better impact, efficiency and value for money. A range of flexibility measures could be taken which would not cost money. They would give TECs the flexibility to act. The Minister ought to listen to this. He ought to listen to private sector TEC directors, who say to me that they are in a Catch 22 system. They want things to happen. They want change in their area, but they do not want to be merely the deliverer of the youth and adult training programmes. They want to do more and to add value to their area. They can do that only if they are given flexibility.
300
I wish to raise a point about a local issue affecting my North Nottingham TEC. If the Minister cannot answer today, I hope that he will write to me about it. As part of its adult training for work scheme, the TEC runs a excellent scheme called jobskills. In the past three years, 6,000 people have been through it. They have had employed status. In October, the Department of Social Security's central adjudication service ruled that participants on the scheme were trainees. Given that such trainees pay national insurance contributions, that seems most odd. They had employed status in the past, which enabled them to claim family credit. Participants or potential participants now cannot claim family credit so fewer people now go on the scheme. Far from being a successful scheme, the rate of take-up is now 20 per cent. down.
I understand that the Minister's officials are talking to other Government Departments about the matter. It is a good scheme, and it would be easy for the Government to resolve the matter. I hope that they will look into it and take it forward.
TECs are important. They are about investing in people, in education and training and in the future. We want to compete with the best in the world—with Japan and Germany. Let us invest in the TECs, give them flexibility, move forward and work for real change if and when we come out of the recession.
12.38 pm
Ms Harriet Harman: I welcome the opportunity of the debate provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). It is a pity that many Opposition Members who had important speeches to make—there is a great deal of concern on this side of the House—were not able to speak because of shortage of time and the padding speech by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). That is a shame.
The Opposition believe that training is vital for everyone. High skills mean reasonable prospects and low skills mean insecurity and, all too often, the dole. Everyone knows that one needs skills and one needs to be constantly upgrading them to get a job and to get on in a job. Everyone also knows that these days unemployment is not so much about why one lost one's last job, but about why one did not get the next. How long it takes to get a job depends on one's skill level. There is a clear correlation between lack of skills and long-term unemployment, so high skills are vital for everyone.
High skills are also essential for our economy as a whole. We need them to compete in today's global market, as is well recognised by businesses in this country and by other countries with more successful economies. Before the advent of information super-highways and the dramatic improvements in transport, the success of an economy, and what our economic success was built on, was access to capital and raw materials. Now, capital can cross the world at the touch of a button and raw materials can be moved anywhere.
The skills of a country's people are what gives it its competitive edge and it is because skills are so important that the wholly inadequate state of training in Britain today is so disastrous. This country is second from the bottom in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development international skills league table and we have four major problems, which I shall highlight and to

301
which I want the Minister to respond. Those are: cuts in training courses, the poor quality of training, the collapse of the South Thames TEC and the inadequacy of training provided by employers for their employees.
There is a clear link between long-term unemployment and lack of skills, so why have the Government cut the training for work programme, which is intended for unemployed people and is supposed to give them the skills to help them get back into work? Last November, the Budget cut the training for work programme by a quarter. Those cuts will condemn the unemployed to even longer on the dole.
By the Government's own admission, there will be 55,000 fewer training for work places in the year beginning in April than there were in the current year. The Secretary of State for Employment says that, despite the cut, more people will come out with qualifications and jobs at the end of the programme. His plans, which he believes and says will improve the efficiency of training for work, do not necessitate cuts. He should be aiming to improve the quality for all people on training for work, not for 55,000 fewer trainees.
I reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about training for people with special needs. There is mounting concern about such training. By definition, they are the people who have the most difficulty finding and keeping jobs. They also need greater support during training. That must be done, otherwise they will simply be thrown on the scrap heap and their problems will be made worse.
The inflexibility of output-related funding means that it will flow to the quickest results, which means that training will go to those who can achieve and get qualifications the quickest and who can find a job the easiest. That institutionalises a bias against those who need help most—those with special needs, the long-term unemployed, who have most difficulty getting jobs, and women who want to train and work in occupations that are traditionally male. In short, it means that training for those who pay the bills fastest will take priority over training for those who need the help most.
On the variable difference between regions, the Government's figures show dramatic and unacceptable differences in funding and achievement between different parts of the country. Let me take the Minister through some of his figures and hear his response. First, on funding, let us look at training and enterprise council spending per unemployed person in the area. The TEC with the lowest funding, North London TEC, gets only a quarter of the amount that the Government give to the highest funded, South and East Cheshire. The latter gets £1,600 funding per unemployed person, whereas the North London TEC gets only £476 per unemployed person.
The top five best-funded TECs are all in areas that are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament: Cheshire, East Lancashire, Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Suffolk. The bottom five are all in areas represented by Labour Members of Parliament in London. The Minister has some explaining to do and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so today. Whether one gets training and the quality of that training should depend on one's needs and not on where
302
one lives. It should certainly not depend on whether one lives in a Tory area that is favoured by the Government, or a Labour area that is not.
On success rates, the figures must be examined with some care because the Government's definition of a success rate begs the question of how difficult the task was in the first place. Let us consider the Government's figures. Overall, the success rates for training for work and youth training are lamentable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, 58 per cent. of youth trainees do not even complete the scheme. Half of those who complete it do not find a job at the end and half have no qualifications at the end of the scheme.
On training for work, only one in four trainees leaves to go to a full-time job. Those figures are lamentable, but on top of that there are very worrying regional variations, as 42 per cent. of trainees in North Nottinghamshire TEC programmes leave to go to full-time work—less than half—whereas in the North West Wales TEC and the Essex TEC areas, only 16 per cent. find full-time work when they leave.
What is especially worrying about the training for work and the youth training programmes is the clear gap between the success rates for black and white trainees, and we must have a response from the Minister on that. Although the results, both on training for work and youth training, are very poor, they are doubly bad for people from ethnic minorities. In London, 45 per cent. of white youth trainees leave to go to a job—less than half—but only 18 per cent. of black youth trainees leave to go to a job, which is less than one fifth. Something is badly wrong there. Government training is failing black people—the people who find it hardest to get a job. Is it any wonder that 60 per cent. of young black men in London are unemployed? Training is failing them. The picture is just as bleak on the training for work scheme for unemployed people. Overall, 24 per cent. of white people on such schemes leave to get a full-time job, but only 18 per cent. of black trainees get a job at the end of their training.
The funding has been cut, results are patchy and training is failing—it is failing black people in particular—but there is worse to come. The South Thames TEC has gone bankrupt and I totally support all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Some colleagues, who represent Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, have been present for the debate and are very concerned about that TEC.
The Government allowed the South Thames TEC to go bankrupt and there is now no training organisation for Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth or Greenwich. Centec and Solotec, which were supposed to pick up the pieces, have not done so. There is no contract for training in those boroughs and all the training schemes are in limbo. Millions of pounds are owed to providers who have paid out on training allowances for unemployed people on Government training schemes. But, when the TEC collapses, the Government jump back and say, "It's nothing to do with us. Everyone else will have to pick up the bill." That is a disgrace.
Southwark college is owed £400,000 and the Government say, "That's just your hard luck." Springboard Southwark, a small private training organisation, is owed £170,000 by South Thames TEC and the Government say, "Nothing to do with us." But, it is something to do with them. They set up South Thames

303
TEC and it was running Government training schemes, so they cannot wash their hands of responsibility for training simply because they have allowed it to go wrong.
The Government have also failed to ensure that employers train. The old training levies have been abolished for all except the construction industry and many employers do not train at all, while some train only their top managers. An invaluable research project commissioned by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers from the university of Leeds showed that, even where employers spend money on training their employees, most of it is wasted. Two thirds of employees said that the training did not help them to do their job, and half said that training did not give them skills that would help them in their future career development.
New attention must be paid to training by employers. All employers should be required by law to contribute to training their work force, and employees should receive training that they find useful. The heart of the problem is that the Government do not believe that they have a role in providing training or ensuring that businesses train. They believe that it should all be left to the market, but our people and the economy are now paying a price for that failed ideology.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): It is traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who has gained the opportunity to discuss an issue in an Adjournment debate, and I willingly congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on that. However, that is where my congratulations end, because rarely have I heard such a diatribe, punctuated only by headlines, allegations of fraud and corruption by Ministers, civil servants and anyone else who happened to get in the firing line. His speech was totally dissociated from the reality of what is happening in training. It was in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) who, while clearly concerned about funding aspects, at least put forward some carefully thought-out proposals, to which I hope to respond briefly in the few moments that I have to reply.
This debate takes place against the background of TECs having been in operation for about four years. In that time, the benefits of changing the method of delivering Government training programmes and the range of other TEC remits have clearly borne fruit. Since the instigation of TECs, the proportion of young people leaving training programmes with a recognised qualification has doubled to 67 per cent., which is considerably more than the 50 per cent. which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) bandied about, having grasped the figure out of the air. The cost of achieving a qualification has fallen by 22 per cent., which clearly benefits everybody concerned, and the cost of getting adult trainees into jobs or further training has fallen by 25 per cent.
Although I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), his point about reducing the cost of getting a job was one not of funding but of mathematics. If the number of people getting jobs increases, the cost per job automatically declines.
A second aspect of the debate is money. This year, TEC budgets nationally, excluding allowances for training for work, will rise by some £19 million in cash terms, from
304
£1,100 million to £1,119 million. In the next two years, expenditure is expected to rise to £1,217 million and £1,236 million respectively. I stress that those figures exclude training for work allowances. It is important to make that distinction, because TECs have no control over allowances. They are set by my colleagues in the Department for Social Security and are not part and parcel of the budget over which a TEC can exercise flexibility.
Within those totals, the increase for young people in modern apprenticeships is £117 million, which is a considerable increase in expenditure. I admit that the training for work budget has been reduced by some 13 per cent. when the allowances aspect is excluded, but what is important is the fact that we are keeping up output. It is planned that 4 per cent. more people will get jobs in the coming year out of the training for work programme. We aim to increase the current 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. by 1997-98, as none of us believes that 33 per cent. is satisfactory. Hon. Members have referred to the low achievements of the training for work programme and I happily accept that criticism, which is why we are concentrating on driving up the result to at least 50 per cent. I was encouraged by the suggestion by the hon. Member for Eastleigh that that target was not high enough. It may redouble our efforts to look more closely at the target.
A further point about budgets applies particularly to the Greater Nottingham TEC, Southern Derbyshire TEC and many other TECs to which reference was made in the debate. As no contracts have yet been signed with TECs and all the figures that have been quoted are under discussion, it would be wrong of me, at this stage, to comment on individual TECs' budgets or contracts that have not been finalised.
Mr. John Heppell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Paice: No, I am afraid that I do not have time.
Linked to that point is the fact that the total figure of £1,119 million includes considerable sums that are not allocated at this time through the contracts being discussed, the most significant sum being £41 million from the European social fund. That money, for which TECs are competing, will come into the frame. I know that Greater Nottingham TEC is competing for it, but I cannot yet foresee whether it will receive the money.
Another aspect is known as the work-related further education budget, which is some £60 million. None of that is disappearing from the training budget and £30 million has now been redirected to colleges, so although it may have come out of TECs, it has not come out of training. The other £30 million now goes into competitiveness and development funds for which TECs will bid, so it comes back into the TEC equation. In addition, some regions are keeping back small sums as contingency funds to respond to individual TECs' specific needs or exceptional performance.
Another important point is about the single regeneration budget. I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, South accuse civil servants of stealing money. That is a horrendous, scurrilous accusation to make against civil servants, who judged the bids for the SRB extremely carefully. I well understand Greater Nottingham TEC's dissatisfaction about achieving no benefit from the SRB this year, but it was clearly because regional office officials believed that better bids were

305
made. Nothing stops further bids being made in the second round this autumn, when an extra £40 million will be available.
A point made several times in the debate is that the move towards output-related funding will somehow penalise those with special needs and difficulties. Hon. Members naturally draw that conclusion when they do not bother to find out what goes on, and I am afraid that that was clear in the case of the hon. Member for Peckham, with her diatribe on that subject. In reality, we have protected those with special needs. First, despite the reduced numbers overall in the programme, which we readily accept, we are ensuring that the number of starts by people with special needs will be maintained and will increase as a proportion of the total. Secondly, the funding allocated to people with special training needs is substantially enhanced. I do have time to go into all the details, although I am happy to provide them. In many cases, funding is double the amount that goes to someone without special needs. It must be recognised that, in this contract round, measures have been taken to protect those with special needs.
The hon. Member for Sherwood wanted me to respond to two or three points. The first was about rising outputs, the need for flexibility and greater virement possibilities. We will consider those matters. I am anxious to ensure that TECs have all the flexibility that we can possibly give them, commensurate with our accountability to the House for public money. I was interested in what he said about a single training for work budget. I also agree that TECs are not just for deliverers of training—they have a whole enterprise culture to develop.
I am rapidly running out of time, but I should like to reply briefly to what the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Peckham said about South Thames TEC. I have put it on record in an earlier Adjournment debate that no trainee has been left in the lurch. Every trainee has been able to continue his or her programme. It was complete nonsense for the hon. Member for Peckham to suggest that we have ditched trainees. We have made the future of training programmes absolutely central to our policy.

Housing (Uttlesford)
1 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate the debate. It is a tale of unwanted housing, which has arisen from an airport, which was, at least in the beginning, unwanted.
Opinions about the value of Stansted airport may have changed in the intervening years. Many people are grateful for the work opportunities that it provides. Others are finding it convenient to start some of their journeys from that airport. I pay tribute to the airport's operator, BAA plc, for its efforts to build links with the local community, so that the airport is more accepted than it was when the prospect of major development was first suggested.
There is absolutely no doubt about the steely determination throughout the district of Uttlesford that the rural nature of our district, which is undoubtedly the most picturesque part of north-west Essex, should not be scarred as a result of urbanisation. For that reason, the very term "airport-related housing" raises hackles throughout the district.
I have three questions to put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. First, the amount of airport-related housing currently prescribed in line with the projected development of Stansted airport is now undoubtedly subject to question. What is the scope of Uttlesford district council's options in terms of whether it is entitled to seek a second inquiry in relation to the final determination of the matter? Is the overall system for the inspection of local plans totally fair to all the parties affected by them? Had the decision taken by Uttlesford district council been different from that which is now subject to final comment, I would still be asking almost identical questions on behalf of other constituents to those that I have just posed. No one throughout Uttlesford district is particularly keen to have a large number of houses built, especially when those houses are deemed to be airport related.
There is no doubt that memories have faded since the original airport inquiry took place. After all, it is now 14 years since the issues were first discussed. One of the principal reasons for our original opposition to large-scale development at Stansted was that it would lead to urbanisation. We knew that it meant more housing would need to be built. Now that hard decisions must be taken about the amount and location of that housing, I am getting many inquiries about whether, after those intervening years, and given what we now know, the need is still as great as it was when the issue was first discussed and argued. It was originally determined that 2,500 houses would be needed if Stansted is given permission by the House to increase the number of passengers it handles from 8 million per annum to 15 million per annum. That housing was designated for Uttlesford alone, although other houses were to be built in neighbouring districts. That figure was later adjusted to 2,175, only by virtue of adding 325 houses to airport-related development decreed for Dunmow, as part of the first tranche of airport development.
Many of my constituents, in whatever part of the district they live, now question the scale of airport-related housing which was originally determined. They question whether the assumptions about the productivity at the

307
airport are still valid and whether the proposed urbanisation is still required. They also ask whether the ideas propounded in planning policy guidance 13, published as recently as March 1994, suggest that so much housing should not be as close to the airport as originally planned when the figures were first worked out.
It was decided at regional level that the east-west axis of the Al20 should be the general location of the airport-related housing. That was in contradistinction to the north-south axis of the M11, which was seen purely as a corridor of communication, not as a corridor of development. Had the Al20 even been started, let alone built by now, that would have given greater credibility to the sites discussed—whether subsequently rejected or proposed—for airport-related housing. I would be encouraged if my hon. Friend could put the squeeze on his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport, so that we can be more certain about when the new Al20 will go ahead. Without it, some of the decisions that have had to be taken about housing seem even more mysterious to the people affected.
The second major issue to which I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention is the way in which Uttlesford district council has dealt with the problem. It is the most invidious task that it has had to face in years. It knows that even if it had consulted all the parishes within the district on how they would like to contribute to an agreed solution to the problem of where to place those 2,500 houses, it would have been impossible to come to any decision. The decision had to be taken by the elected members of the district council and they tried do so as objectively as possible. First, they asked their planning officers to present a scheme to cope with the proposal. That resulted in the original suggestion of 1,400 houses at Felsted and 1,100 houses at Takeley. Naturally, that was bitterly resisted. An amended plan from the council included two other sites and reduced the number of houses designated for Felsted and Takeley. At the crucial council meetings, those alternatives were rejected in favour of putting all the 2,500 houses—later amended to 2,175—at a single site, Easton Park. That proposal formed part of the local plan, which was subject to inspection.
As a result of the inquiry, and because the inspector recommended that the council should reconsider a four-site solution, although a slightly different one from that originally considered, many of my constituents in the affected areas are now asking whether further consideration should be given to the proposal, so that they can have more of a say. It is a question of how one interprets the guidance published by the Department of the Environment. The crucial passage is as follows:
"The Secretary of State advises planning authorities to hold an inquiry where objections raise matters which were not at issue at all at the earlier stage. This may arise, for example, if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier, so that the objections made to the proposed modification include new evidence."
It is not apparent to me whether that means that a recommendation by an inspector upsetting what was in the original plan constitutes the new evidence, or whether that refers to something wholly different in the plan. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would throw some light on whether Uttlesford district council interpreted the guidance correctly in respect of its decision about holding another inquiry into placing houses on the four sites instead of the single site.
308
The third issue is the system as a whole. I have aggrieved constituents who feel let down by the system for the examination of local plans. Some of the most pertinent questions that I have been asked came in a letter from one of the district councillors for Felsted and Little Dunmow, Mr. John Berry-Richards, and which he also asked the Secretary of State. May he please be told who draws up the terms of reference for such an inquiry? Is it usual to decide that some representations are rejected at the pre-inquiry meeting? Is it usual for the inspector to make specific recommendations in the event of his being unable to support the preferred options? In the event of the inspector making recommendations that affect those people not permitted to make representations, what recourse is open to them?
There are other letters, whether they come from Takeley, Birchanger, Little Dunmow or Felsted, saying more or less the same thing. Although the inspector allowed the proponents of the Felsted development to make their case, he refused to hear representations from the communities that would be affected.
"Living where I do,"
says a lady,
"I would be pleased to be able to put forward my views as would many other people living in"
the area,
"since we were not allowed to have our say at the Enquiry in 1993."
Felsted parish council could be speaking for Takeley parish council or Birchanger parish council when it says:
"One of these sites … will have an enormous impact on our village and yet neither this Council, nor any of its residents, were allowed to question the evidence presented to the Public Inquiry".
The words "undemocratic" and "unfair" pervade a great many of the letters that I have received. Those people in the districts where it is now determined that the airport-related housing will be did not have their own opportunity to express their feelings about the matter directly, orally, to the inspector at the inquiry. It is understandable that they feel that they should have been heard, in the light of the undoubted impact that they believe that such housing would have; anyone else in the district would feel exactly the same if the decision had gone against them.
I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to satisfy my worried constituents that the need for airport-related housing remains valid on the original assumptions, that Uttlesford district council has correctly interpreted the guidance from the Department of the Environment, and that the system not only allows justice to be done, but allows it to be seen to be done. At the moment, many people in Birchanger, Little Dunmow, Felsted and Takeley are not convinced.
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I welcome the opportunity to discuss a difficult local problem. Uttlesford district council is planning to provide for housing that would be needed for the expansion of Stansted airport and the jobs that it will bring to the district.
I am abundantly aware, as is obvious, of the great anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and many of his constituents about that issue, and I congratulate him on the explicit and emphatically clear way in which he has expressed

309
those anxieties in his speech. He made an apposite point when he said—I forget the phrase—something along the lines of, "People always express considerable concern when the decision goes against them."
Before I respond to the anxieties described by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I briefly provide the background to the issues and mention some of the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned as background.
The Government are committed to a planning system that tries to ensure that land is used for purposes that meet the wider public interest. The key to that is the development plan. Our national planning policies underpin the whole system. A framework of regional planning guidance is built on that basis. Within that framework—in the shire counties—county councils construct strategic plans and district councils develop those strategic visions into local planning policies, some of which allocate specific sites for specific purposes.
We believe in involving local people in the process, not just those concerned with promoting development or specific interest groups in the plan area, but the local people who will be affected by the plan's proposals. To aid that, the plan-making process allows for formal public consultation at several stages from the first draft to the final amendments. I shall follow the Uttlesford local plan through those stages in a moment, but every local plan, as Members are aware, is a jigsaw of interlocking needs and choices over forthcoming years, and often represents a balance between a range of interests and viewpoints.
Once adopted, the development plan gives a measure of certainty to local people and would-be developers about what types of development are acceptable in specific districts. Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless there are very strong reasons why they should not.
As we have chosen a system that encourages consultation, we must accept that, as a result, plans can take several years to progress from first thoughts to adoption and use for development control decisions. However, it is in everyone's interests to put the development plan in place. We have committed ourselves to complete coverage of local plans in the shire counties and unitary development plans in the metropolitan boroughs by the end of 1996. To date we have much more than 60 per cent. coverage, so I am confident—or reasonably confident—that we shall get close to the target.
I therefore welcome the progress that has been made on the Uttlesford district local plan, although I understand very well the specific worries expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and some of his constituents about the allocation of substantial numbers of new houses to meet projected future needs. That is the major issue in that local plan.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, the need for housing in Uttlesford is closely linked with the projected expansion of London Stansted airport. As London's third main airport, Stansted is intended, in part, to relieve pressure on the heavily used Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
Stansted has already grown significantly since its terminal complex was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1991. By August 1994, it welcomed its 3 millionth passenger of the year, and it has the capacity to handle 8 million passengers a year.
310
Four thousand extra houses are already planned to meet the needs of airport workers and related businesses, spread between Uttlesford, with 900, Harlow with 1,100 and Bishop's Stortford, with 1,000. Many of those have already been built or are under construction. Even more growth at Stansted is expected and planning permission has been granted for the second phase of growth, from 8 million to 15 million passengers per year. However, that is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament of an order increasing the current limit of 78,000 air traffic movements per year.
We recognise that the airport is currently expanding at a slower rate than was first expected. The planned increase to 8 million passengers per year is unlikely to take place before the end of the 1990s.
In October 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced his unilateral decision to allow United States and United Kingdom airlines to operate unrestricted transatlantic scheduled flights from all UK regional airports, and urged the US Government to respond positively to the offer. The decision could bring substantial benefits for London Stansted airport, among others. Several US airlines have expressed an interest in using Stansted, and the airport's managing director has predicted that that relaxation of the rules governing transatlantic scheduled flights might lead to a big increase in the number of people employed at the airport.
It is, as I think has been outlined, a picture of expansion, of enhanced job prospects and a boost to the local economy, but that projected growth would have consequences that local planning authorities cannot ignore. It is estimated that, in time, a further 6,000 houses would be needed to accommodate those who would take up the jobs that the continued expansion would provide. It has been suggested that, because the growth of Stansted has not been as rapid as initially predicted, that housing may not be needed after all. We recognise that nobody can put precise figures on future growth, month by month and year by year, because it depends on demand for flights and controls over air traffic movements. But if we encouraged the county council and the district councils to defer considering the consequences of the national decision on airport expansion, we would be acting irresponsibly.
Forward planning is essential, and it is clear that suitable provision needs to be debated and identified through the local plan process. The Essex county structure plan's first alteration proposed to spread the provision between Uttlesford, with 2,500, Bishop's Stortford, with 1,500, Braintree, with 1,000, Chelmsford, with 500, and Colchester, with 500.
Uttlesford district council put its deposited draft local plan out to public consultation in April 1992. That plan looked ahead to the year 2001. It proposed that the 2,500 dwellings needed for the future growth of Stansted airport should be grouped in a new settlement at Little Easton, to be known as Easton Park.
As my hon. Friend is aware, a public local inquiry was held into objections to the plan between May and October 1993. The inspector who conducted the inquiry was in no doubt about the importance of Stansted to Uttlesford. In the introduction to his report he says:
"In the Airport Uttlesford contains an economic engine-room of previously unparalleled local proportions".

311
He continues:
"I would hazard a guess that there is no other comparable rural area currently engaged in the local plan system which is obliged to consider the promise of such rapid change".
The inspector who conducted the inquiry was not convinced that the small new settlement proposed was the best solution. He recommended instead that the housing be distributed among four smaller sites—650 dwellings at the Felsted sugar beet works, 825 at north-east Takeley, 400 at Rochford nurseries and 625 at Buildings farm, Great Dunmow. It appears that he reached that view after hearing evidence on the Little Easton proposal and alternative sites. As my hon. Friend has said, the inspector declined to hear counter-objections to the alternative sites that were put forward. But he did take into account the written evidence presented. His report discusses the merits of all the sites in some detail.
The inspector is clearly aware, as his report says, that
"Felsted and Takeley are keenly opposed by local people".
He draws attention to the nature of the various sites, whether high-quality agricultural land in the case of Easton Park or more neglected commercial, or even brown, sites in the case of Felsted sugar beet factory and Rochford nurseries. He considers the nature of existing settlements, development pressures, environmental conditions and traffic impacts.
The inspector reaches the conclusion that the four-site solution is consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and is fair in the sense that the impact of the additional housing would be spread across a wider area of the district at a scale which would not be significantly out of step with the most directly affected communities. He says that, of all the options before him, the combination of the four sites would cause the least intrinsic damage to the range of wider public interests that the planning system strives to protect.
The district council accepted the inspector's recommendation and published modifications to the plan, which provided for the housing associated with the growth of Stansted to be located in the four areas identified by the inspector. Those modifications introduce new policies into the local plan which require the layout and phasing of development at each of the four locations to follow principles set out in an overall master plan, which would form the framework for the consideration of planning applications. Each plan is to be approved by the council only after full public consultation, which means that local residents will be given the opportunity to express their views on the details of the development proposed for each site. That requirement for public consultation is not a suggestion buried in a footnote somewhere; it is built into the text of the policies.
Objectors to the proposed modifications wanted a second public inquiry to reopen the debate on the alternative housing sites. However, after considering those objections, the council decided that no new matters had been raised and a second inquiry would not be justified. That is probably correct, in that it was a local plan and the local council, the local people's representatives, should make the decision. The council has now given formal public notice of its intention to adopt the modified plan on or after 14 April.
As my hon. Friend explained, objectors remain dissatisfied with the council's decision. They also question whether the first inquiry was conducted properly. The conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector
312
and evidence is heard at his discretion. Local plan inspectors report to the local planning authority, not to the Secretary of State, so he has no formal jurisdiction over the procedure adopted at the inquiry.
My hon. Friend draws attention to our planning policy guidance note 12, which provides advice on the conduct of all stages of the local plan process. That guidance has been reproduced in a booklet "Development Plans: What you need to know", which is aimed at the general public who want to be involved. That guidance considers the circumstances in which a second public inquiry may be necessary into a local planning authority's proposed modifications to its local plan. That is an important issue.
The guidance states:
"an inquiry into objections will be necessary only in exceptional circumstances, and it will not normally be necessary to hold a further inquiry into matters already considered. That includes instances where there are objections to modifications not proposed by an authority in response to the Inspector's report. The Secretary of State advises planning authorities to hold an inquiry where objections raise matters which were not at issue at all at the earlier stage. This may arise, for example, if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier, so that the objections made to the proposed modification include new evidence."
I hope that that answers some of the points that were raised.
The guidance does not say that a second inquiry should be held in every case where a different proposal is substituted for one in the original plan. It all depends on the extent to which there is new evidence—that is the crux of the matter. In every case where that question arises—and it arises not only in Uttlesford—we must decide whether the issues are "matters already considered" or
"matters which were not at issue at all".
Of course, there is not always a straightforward answer of yes or no—in fact, the phraseology is not too straightforward either. It may well be a matter of degree—was the consideration given to an issue satisfactory and sufficient? While my hon. Friend has concerns on such issues, it is clear that the inspector was satisfied that he had sufficient information to make a recommendation in favour of the four sites, and that Uttlesford district council considered the written objections to those sites before reaching the conclusion that a second inquiry should not be held. But those objectors, from Felsted and elsewhere, did not have the opportunity to cross-examine on the case for development in their villages.
My hon. Friend asks whether we can help his constituents and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene in the Uttlesford district local plan. The Secretary of State has the reserve power to call in all or part of a local plan for his determination and to arrange a further inquiry. That power has not, to date, been used. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that such action would cut across the thrust of the planning system. We want to take the local plan process out of the hands of the local planning authority only in extreme circumstances.
It might be suggested that the issue is a national one that justifies the Secretary of State's intervention because it springs from national decisions about airport capacity. I accept that there may be a measure of truth in that. But once such national decisions have been taken, it is surely right to leave it to the local people—in this case, the local district council in particular—to determine how those decisions should be implemented locally.

313
I understand and sympathise with the concerns of those of my hon. Friend's constituents who consider that they have not had the opportunity to express their views in public debate as well as in writing. Irrespective of what the outcome of that debate would have been, I can understand that the experience has left them unhappy with the local plan process. But I am not persuaded that the formal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Uttlesford district plan would be justified.
There are two possible avenues for those who are unable to accept the modifications which the council has made to the district plan. They may be unable to accept the modifications over the allocation of Stansted-related housing, either because they oppose one or more of the four sites chosen, or because they positively support the original Little Easton site. The first is to seek redress in the courts, either to prevent the council proceeding to adopt the district plan or by mounting a legal challenge to its adoption. I believe that some are contemplating that, and they will of course want to take legal advice before they proceed. I recognise, of course, that legal action is not an avenue which everyone will want, or can afford, to take.
Some might prefer the Government to short-circuit the process by saying that the local planning authority's decision was flawed. But we have no powers to do that; and in any case we have no locus to substitute our judgment on these complicated issues for that of the local authority.
The second course of action is to seek to influence the development briefs for the individual housing sites when they become available for public consultation.

Baby Milk
1.30 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of the advertising of manufactured baby milk. I do not propose to speak for every minute of my allotted time because I have agreed that it would be appropriate to allow a contribution from the Labour Front Bench. That means that I shall not give way during my short speech.
As a male Cow and Gate baby, I speak on this subject with some diffidence. However, I recognise the importance of the subject, and particularly the pressures that women often believe are placed upon them in connection with it.
In 1981, the British Government signed the World Health Organisation international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. The purpose of the code is to ensure that all carers, health workers and especially mothers receive totally impartial information and are protected from commercial pressures, to enable them to make informed decisions about feeding infants. It should be recognised that that information must include appropriate facts about artificial milk products, as not all mothers are able to breast-feed their babies successfully.
In 1990, the Government signed the Innocentri declaration, which committed them to
"taking action to give effect to the principles and aim of all the articles of the International Code … in their entirety".
It also committed the Government to enacting
"imaginative legislation protecting the breastfeeding rights of working women … by the year 1995".
The Government White Paper "The Health of the Nation" called for an increase in the rate of breast-feeding in the United Kingdom. That call was widely welcomed. The Government continued to pay lip service to breast-feeding promotion by supporting the World Health Assembly resolution No. 47.5 of 9 May 1994. We were given one last reason to trust the Government's concern for breast-feeding over bottled formula when they released a proposal for draft regulations in December 1993. The proposals came close to meeting the criteria set out in the international code, although not completely.
However, the true measure of a Government's commitment is in the legislation that they pass. According to that standard, the Government have fallen far short of the promises and alleged commitments that they have made over the past 14 years in their 1995 regulations—Statutory Instrument No. 77—which have been in force for three weeks.
The proposed regulations met with mostly positive responses, despite some calls to strengthen them. The only calls for the draft to be weakened came from baby food producers and their advertising agencies. The Government answered their call with the present regulations, which allow advertising to mothers via
"publications specialising in baby care and distributed to women through the health care system".
Advice was obtained from 48 health, consumer and development organisations, including UNICEF, the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Association, the Health Visitors Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the National Consumer Council and the National Childbirth

315
Trust. However, their views were dismissed. The international code, to which I referred earlier, provides in articles 5.1 and 6.3 that
"There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code … No facility of the health care system should be used for the purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code".
However, the international code does not preclude the dissemination of information to a very restricted group—health care professionals.
Regulation 17 of the new law flatly contradicts that code. It states:
"No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula except in a publication specialising in baby care and distributed only through the health care system".
That is very different from disseminating information only to health care professionals. For example, leaflets may be picked up in any doctor's surgery, clinic or hospital.
Putting aside the Government's policy U-turn, it is correct in this debate to address the reasons why internationally agreed restrictions on milk advertising are necessary or advisable. The most important reason is that breast milk is significantly better for infants than manufactured formula. In 1994, the standing committee on nutrition of the British Paediatric Association stated:
"evidence convincingly indicates that … significant advantages in cognitive assumption have been associated with breast feeding".
Gastro-enteritis and other common infections are less likely among breast-fed babies. Breast-feeding is also better for mothers as it may reduce the risk of pre-menopausal maternal breast cancer. They are just three examples of the many advantages of breast-feeding which are set out in scientific evidence.
The manufactured baby milk industry spends quite a lot of money on advertising. According to the information available to me, it spends between £5 million and £7 million. That translates to about £6.40 per baby. The Government spend between £100,000 and £150,000 on promoting the advantages of breast-feeding, which translates to a measly 20p per baby. It is not a very equal contest.
If the Government were to persuade more mothers to breast-feed, it would save a lot of money. Based on the widespread health benefits of breast-feeding, UNICEF estimates that the national health service in England and Wales would incur an additional cost of £560,000 for treating infants with gastro-intestinal illness for every 1 per cent. reduction in the number of women electing to breast-feed. In other words, breast feeding saves the NHS a lot of money.
The new regulations permit advertisements for formula in
"publications specialising in baby care and distributed to women through the health care system".
One presumes that the Government would argue that that allows mothers access to information on the relative contents of different brands of formula and thus enables them to make an informed choice. However, one has only to look at the information that is provided to see that that is not so. If the scientific information were disseminated widely, it would tax the most expert on the subject. That is why it is important for advertising to be restricted to those professionals who are best qualified to advise mothers on an objective basis.
316
That a ban on the advertising of baby milk formula would make a significant difference to breast-feeding rates is evidenced by the three European countries which have little or no advertising of manufactured baby milk products. The breast-feeding rate in Norway is 99 per cent., in Sweden it is 97 per cent. and in Denmark it is 98 per cent. On the other hand, in countries where the bulk of information about breast-feeding and formulas comes from the manufacturers of those formulas, the rate of breast-feeding is alarmingly low. In Scotland it is 50 per cent., in France it is 50 per cent. and in Ireland it is a miserable 31 per cent.
The advertising of infant formula in the health service is simply unacceptable. The national health service is no place for mothers to be turned on to a product that is not as good for the baby as the mother's own breast milk and not as good for the mother as giving her own breast milk.
Brand name advertising is selective. It reaches mothers at an early stage with information packs, free gifts and even videos going to maternity wards. Manufacturers provide only the information that they want to be known, and it is not impartial. It is the responsibility of the health service and of the Government to provide impartial and unbiased information. We must keep it in mind that a ban on advertising would not deny anyone the right to buy baby milk if they chose to do so; it would just make it more likely that they would seek balanced, expert and professional advice before they chose to use manufactured milk.
Our responsibility is to protect the best interests of those people who are unable to exercise their own personal choice—the babies. That is the reason for this debate.
1.40 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I was astonished to discover that I have to speak from the Back Benches in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Adjournment debates are Back-Bench debates.
Mr. Jones: I was not challenging your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has allowed me some time in his debate because he has raised an extremely important issue. He made a very good case and I endorse everything that he has said in his peroration. However, I should like to add one or two points, which need stressing.
The Government's draft proposals found favour, with virtually no dissent. I understand that, out of 231 letters sent, 216 replied in favour of a ban on advertising baby milk. It seems odd that the Government should carry out a consultation exercise and then not listen to the views of the professionals, which include 48 major health and consumer bodies, among them such organisations as the British Paediatric Association, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association. All those organisations are concerned about the health of the infant and not about selling baby milk. They are concerned about giving women an informed choice, thereby providing them with the opportunity to give their children a better start, better health and all the other advantages of breast-feeding.

317
Article 6 of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes produced by the World Health Organisation, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, states:
"No facility of a health care system should be used for the purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code."
That is precisely what the infant formula follow-on regulations do—they allow the advertising of products for sale within the health care system and during the most vulnerable period for mothers who do not have the opportunity to exercise an informed choice.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Last year, I visited the special baby care unit in my constituency and I was horrified to discover that, although the mothers of those babies were able to express sufficient breast milk to feed them while they were in intensive care, as soon as they went home the majority of mothers stopped breast-feeding. Women are under great pressure not to breast-feed, and advertising which juxtaposes slogans saying that breast-feeding is best with the logo of the baby milk company is effectively saying, "Breast milk may be best, but you cannot harm your baby by feeding our formula." That is the wrong message. The message should be, "Feeding breast milk substitutes harms you and your baby."
Mr. Jones: Obviously, in some circumstances it is necessary for a substitute milk to be used, but they represent a tiny minority of cases. The vast majority of babies do better and gain advantages from being breast-fed.
By producing the regulations and not banning the advertising of formula milk, the Government have ignored the demands of 48 major United Kingdom health and consumer bodies. They have broken their agreement on the 1981 World Health Organisation code and, more importantly, they may have created serious dangers to the health of babies. The latest evidence suggests that breast-feeding not only protects babies against gastro-enteritis but affects long-term brain development, with a significant difference between the brain development of breast-fed and baby milk-fed children.
We are not anti-choice. Mothers must be given information, but it must be unbiased and mothers must take decisions based on the health of their children and on their own future well-being. We have heard how much money is spent on promoting breast-feeding, which I thought was nearer 9p per nursing mother, but baby milk manufacturers spend more than £6. That is ridiculous, but it shows how much pressure is being brought to bear on mothers to give their babies baby milk rather than to breast-feed.
Finally, we demand a full debate on the matter at the earliest opportunity. It should at least be considered in Committee, so that all the issues can be fully discussed, rather than in Adjournment debates, in which we are happy to take part, but which cannot fully examine all the pros and cons. The Government have made a serious mistake. They should change their mind and ban infant formula advertising as soon as possible.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am a mother and a mother-in-law. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for raising the subject. As a self-confessed Cow and Gate baby, he seems to have been nourished by, and thrived well on, the product. There is a great deal of interest about the subject. United Kingdom regulations, which include controls on the advertising of baby milks, were laid before Parliament on 16 January and came into force on 1 March.
I find it ironic that today the Government have been criticised for not going far enough because they have failed to ban the advertising of infant formula. Only last April, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who was previously responsible for these matters, replied to a debate in the House and was criticised for going too far in proposing in the draft regulations to ban the advertising of infant formula to mothers.
Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who initiated that debate, represented the constituency in which Cow and Gate had its factory.
Mrs. Browning: That simply proves what a marvellous product it was for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
Having been criticised from both sides, it seems that the Government have steered the right course in the regulations. With that in mind, I should like to set out for the House some of the background to the issue before I deal with the specific points that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the World Health Organisation code. The United Kingdom fully supports the aim of the code, which is to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the protection and promotion of breast-feeding and by ensuring the proper use of breast milk substitutes.
I should clarify the fact that we totally endorse the need to encourage and inform on breast-feeding. We accept that it is the ideal method of feeding new-born babies. All mothers have to choose when to switch their babies from breast milk to powdered milk and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, some mothers cannot breast-feed. Adoptive parents and other small minority groups have also to be considered. I would not wish those women to be stigmatised or made to feel second-class mothers by any of the comments in the debate today.
Individual countries were left to decide how best to implement the recommendations of the WHO code. The UK Government decided that that could best be done through industry self-regulation. Following consultation with interested parties, a voluntary code of practice drawn up by the industry, in consultation with my Department and UK Health Departments, came into being in 1983, which gave effect to the WHO code's aims and principles. However, in the mid to late 1980s, the European Community started to consider the introduction of legislation, which is much tighter than a code. In 1991 the EC adopted directives on the composition, marketing and export of infant formulas and follow-on formulas.

319
While the EC directives implemented the aims and principles of the WHO code, they do not adopt its provisions in every detail. More importantly, the UK is required to implement the terms of the EC directive, not those of the WHO code. In the usual way, the Government considered the terms of the EC directives and drafted regulations to give effect to the directives in the UK, and a draft of the proposed regulations was issued for consultation in December 1993. The consultation generated a considerable response, most particularly about the extent of proposed controls on the advertising of infant formula.
Article 8 of the EC directive, which deals with advertising, states:
"advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications. Member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising."
That article's implementation led to this debate.
In July 1992, long before the draft regulations were issued for consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in answer to a written question, announced:
"The Government are committed to ensuring that the existing restrictions on marketing and advertising are, at least, maintained."—[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 680.]
Bearing in mind that commitment, the Government thought it only right at least to explore other options in the draft regulations.
The draft regulations proposed that the controls on advertising should be far reaching, allowing advertisements to appear only in magazines whose intended readers would be professionals involved in maternal and baby care. It was no surprise that these proposed controls generated a considerable number of responses to the consultation from the public and from many hon. Members. In fact, the regulations were the subject of an Adjournment debate last April.
In the main, reaction was split between two opposing views. One view was that, while supporting the advertising controls proposed, the Government should go even further and use the directive's option to its fullest extent to ban all advertising of infant formula. The opposing view was that we should not use the option at all and should stick to the minimum controls required by the directive.
The latter view drew attention to the Government's policy of deregulation and to the thrust of my Ministry's legislative programme—to introduce regulation as a last resort. There was also a strong feeling—one that I share—that such strict controls would impinge on a mother's right to have access to information. I emphasise that, in essence, we are putting into statute a provision that has existed in voluntary form for some time. That means professionals will give the advice.
Mr. Martyn Jones indicated dissent.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Does he not think that midwives, health visitors and similar people are professionals? They are the people who will vet whether material is appropriate to be sent to mothers. My colleagues in the Department are working hard to ensure the success of the campaign to put before mothers the positive benefits of breast milk, and that is the right way to go. However, the debate denigrates that part of a woman's body from her shoulders to the top of
320
her head. It assumes that women do not have the intelligence or the nous to form an opinion for themselves. Most of the professionals giving that opinion are also women.
Are Opposition Members who contributed to today's debate really saying that midwives and health visitors should not be allowed to see an advertisement for a product that is on sale in every chemist and Tesco branch in the country? One would think that it was a banned substance. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery comes from a party that is constantly asking for deregulation of banned substances. He seems now to want to ban a substance that is available to anybody to purchase in any shop in the country.
Mr. Alex Carlile: That point was rather unworthy of the hon. Lady, particularly as I am personally opposed to the deregulation of the substances that the hon. Lady has in mind. She has been a little less generous than she should have been, given the spirit of the debate. My case is not that mothers are unintelligent or that professionals will not receive the information. It is that, under the regulations, it will be possible for freely available advertising material to lie about unsupervised and unadvised in doctors' surgeries, clinics, dentists' waiting rooms and so on. Surely the Government did not intend that.
Mrs. Browning: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that any publication placed in a doctor's or hospital waiting room will have been vetted by the professionals upon whose expertise we rely in giving advice to mothers.
Mr. Carlile: That is being complacent.
Mrs. Browning:Not at all. That is the restriction imposed by the directive. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not trust health care professionals to vet an advertisement for a product that is freely available? I have not had occasion to buy the product in question for many years, so I made a point of examining its packaging and the claims made for it. I would be concerned if anything on the packaging said that the mother should stop breast-feeding and change to milk powder-feeding, but it does not say that.
Dr. Lynne Jones: It is more subtle than that.
Mrs. Browning: Women are subtle, and they are subtle enough to make intelligent, informed decisions for themselves. They do not need hon. Members to elevate their judgment above that of millions of mothers in this country. While we all agree on the benefits of breast milk-feeding, to assume that hon. Members have better judgment than mothers when it comes to the interests of their babies—
Mr. Carlile: I do.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does have better judgment. Good luck to him. I hope that he will take his advice to maternity units around the country and put it to the test.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I remind the Minister that the bodies to which the material will be submitted are the same organisations that are asking her to ban infant formula advertising.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the representations made by professional bodies

321
were in opposition, but when independent research is undertaken of professionals at the sharp end—health visitors and midwives—there is a different result. They are the professionals, and they say that they are the right people to give advice, and I agree. It is absurd of the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his judgment above that of an experienced midwife or health visitor. He should acknowledge the professionalism of those experts—mainly, but not exclusively, women—who advise women.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Browning: No, because I have only a few more minutes and the hon. Lady merely intervened—it is not her Adjournment debate.
As I said, we were fully committed to supporting the promotion of breast-feeding, and therefore conscious that to adopt only the minimum in the directive would have meant controls less restrictive than those already in place under the voluntary agreement with the industry. We decided that that would not provide the support that the promotion of breast-feeding deserves.
After careful consideration, we concluded that the option that best served that dual purpose was the one that has been operating voluntarily and successfully since 1983. Under the voluntary code of practice, infant formula advertising that is to be read mainly by mothers and pregnant women is not permitted unless it is disseminated under the supervision or care of the health care system. I assure hon. Members that it will remain for the judgment of the professionals concerned. The regulations give statutory effect to the existing voluntary requirements, which means that infant formula advertising will continue to be allowed, but only in baby care publications distributed through the health care system, scientific publications and certain trade journals not seen by the public.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for initiating the debate. We share his concern about, and his enthusiasm for, breast-feeding, but I have to tell him that the women of this country, the mothers of this country and the professionals in the health service are able to make rational judgments. They do not need to be protected from something that is in daily use and that will continue to be so.

Septrin
1.59 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I have called this debate on the drug known as septrin, or bactrim, as I am horrified by what I have learnt about the possible side effects of this commonly prescribed antibiotic.
The significance of the drug goes beyond the horrendous suffering that it has caused a considerable number of those who have taken it, to wider questions about the effectiveness of our regulatory system for drugs and medicines. I have called the debate for two reasons: first, to ask the Minister urgently and thoroughly to review the licence of the drug; and, secondly, to draw the attention of the House to my concerns about the framework for licensing drugs, and the need for change.
I first became aware of the issue of septrin, the generic name of which is co-trimoxazole, in January this year. My constituent, Kate Reid, a young woman in her 30s, came to my advice surgery. She told me that, eight years ago, she visited her general practitioner, as she had a sore throat. She was prescribed septrin. After two days of taking the medicine, she collapsed, her tongue having swollen so badly that she could hardly breathe. She was rushed to hospital. Six weeks followed, during which she continued to suffer because of her allergic reaction to the drug. The skin over her whole body blistered horribly and completely fell away. Her vagina closed up. Her finger and toe nails fell out, and she was unable to walk or talk. She was very lucky to have survived at all. Her suffering has, of course, continued and she will never regain her good health. The physical scars will never disappear, nor will the mental scars.
Not only has Kate Reid had to endure numerous skin grafts and surgery, but she is left unable to walk properly because of the pain in her feet left by the blistering. Her tongue remains black and blistered. He body has stopped producing saliva or tears. Her finger and toe nails have never grown back. She has lost her job and lives on benefit. Her relationship with her boyfriend fell apart and she has had to have psychotherapy to come to terms with the trauma. As one can imagine, when she told me all this, I was horrified at the suffering that this woman had endured as a result of a drug prescribed for a sore throat. At least, I thought, it must be a one-off. Surely such an horrendous reaction must be almost unique.
Tragically, that is not the case. As I have discovered, more and more people are coming forward following recent publicity about septrin. As many as 700 people who have suffered, or whose relatives have suffered similar reactions to those experienced by Kate, after being prescribed septrin for minor ailments such as sore threats or cystitis, have contacted either journalists or one of the septrin action groups. Most of those people are women, as women more commonly get urinary tract infections.
No one knows precisely how many people have died as a result of having taken septrin. A recent report to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in England says that deaths linked to the sulphonamide component of septrin have so far reached 137. The same committee's research, however, shows that 10 times as many cases go unreported. As septrin has been one of the most popular antibiotics since the 1970s, the total figure may well be much higher, and, of course, there are thousands of people like Kate who suffer in varying degrees because of its side effects.

323
What I have tried to do, as a layperson, is to see whether there is a case for reviewing the drug's licence. I submit to the House that the Department of Health cannot continue to ignore the evidence of totally unnecessary human suffering resulting from the inappropriate prescription of septrin. The Department is failing in its duty if it does not call for an immediate and thorough review. More people's lives will be destroyed and more families may lose loved ones in the future.
Septrin was first marketed in 1969 and has been a highly successful commercial product for the Wellcome Foundation. Worldwide sales are said to be worth up to $5 billion. Since it was first licensed, however, extensive medical research has shown that only one of its ingredients, the sulphonamide component, causes those horrific side effects. Furthermore, in most cases, that ingredient is not necessary. Giving patients the other ingredient, trimethoprim, on its own, would be just as effective and much safer.
I am aware that septrin may have a very important role to play in certain circumstances, for example in the treatment of people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome—AIDS—where trimethoprim has not been shown to be as effective as septrin. However, all the major studies have shown that, in most circumstances, trimethoprim alone is just as effective as septrin and much safer. What I cannot understand, therefore, is why the data sheet, which licenses the use of septrin, has not been changed to limit its use to the few circumstances where no other treatment will do.
The case of septrin shows up the failure of our drugs regulation system. The evidence against the wider use of septrin has been around for 20 years, but it has not resulted in a change in the drug's data sheet or licence. Why not? What is in our regulatory framework that can lead to an appalling failure to protect people? First, the system is governed by secrecy. Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 basically gags the experts involved in regulation from revealing information on drugs beyond that specifically contained in the data sheet; so the experts cannot tell us, the public, or even the doctors, that septrin should be prescribed only in certain circumstances. That is particularly dangerous because the Medicines Control Agency, which regulates drugs, is totally funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Its members mostly have an interest in the products on which they advise. Indeed, almost all research in this field is funded by the drugs industry itself. One is left wondering whether the financial interests of the industry have too great an influence at the expense of safety of the patients.
Which? magazine recently undertook a telling piece of research. It sent duplicate requests for information about septrin to the US Food and Drugs Administration and the United Kingdom Medicines Control Agency. The FDA sent the equivalent of 300 pages of detailed data on the drug, including its side effects. The MCA, our agency, took longer to reply and could send a mere 22 pages. The Government's refusal to repeal section 118 is, in my view, misguided and seems to put the interests of industry profit above those of patient safety.
My second point is that patients need better access to authority to complain about the side effects of drugs. At present, they can speak only to their doctor, who may not want to hear that their prescription is responsible for the side effects that the patient has suffered. My constituent, for example, was so persistent that the GP finally removed
324
her from his register—perhaps that is another story. Again, precisely because there is no channel for complaints, the GP will be unaware of similar cases and may presume that it is a one-off, not to be taken as a reflection on the drug as a whole. We need a proper system to monitor openly all cases of side effects. The Committee on Safety of Medicines is a watchdog that never barks. At the very least, there should be patient representatives on it to beef it up so that cases like septrin are taken seriously and are not swept under the carpet. We also need a system under which patients can seek redress for the harm done to them. We seem to have learnt nothing from the thalidomide tragedy. Incredibly, the success rate of legal claims against drug companies in Britain is zero. I hope that the Select Committee on Health will examine the position.
A third change to the regulatory system would have prevented much of the suffering related to septrin had it been introduced 20 years ago. We need a proper, stringent and thorough review of drug licences when they are renewed. The Medicines Act requires the renewal of licences every five years, but I understand that the reviews are generally conducted by administrative staff at the Department of Health rather than by experts, and tend to go through almost on the nod. We can only presume that that happened with the renewal of the licence for septrin; how else can the licence have been renewed time after time with no change in the rules governing its use?
In its report last summer, the Select Committee on Health made precisely that point to the Government. It recommended a national prescribing list of medicines for the NHS, with drugs being reviewed stringently every five years for inclusion in the list. In a vast and ever-changing market, it is essential that the Government accept the Committee's recommendations: regular reviews of drug licences are essential to determining which drug is the most appropriate, in terms of both effectiveness and cost.
The final change that I consider crucial to the safeguarding of patients is for the Department of Health to take responsibility for informing doctors when a drug's licence has changed. At present, even if the information were getting through to the Medicines Control Agency and drug licences changed when they should, GPs would be unlikely to be aware of the change. That is borne out by evidence that most hospitals have largely abandoned the use of septrin, other than for the treatment of people with AIDS. GPs have not followed suit. There are so many products on the market that GPs tend to use those that they have heard of—those that drug companies have promoted heavily, or tried and tested products that they are used to.
Just one example is griseofulvin, an anti-fungal medicine. Last year, the data sheet for griseofulvin was changed, stating that it should not be prescribed for men who expect to father a child in the next six months. There was no announcement of the change to GPs. How many have continued to prescribe griseofulvin in exactly the same way as they always have, unaware of any change in the data sheet?
If the Government made the changes that I have recommended to tighten drug regulation, tragedies such as those that have befallen my constituent and countless others might be avoided in the future. The onus is on the Government to reassure the British people that their concern lies with the health of the patient, not the health of the drug industry. The evidence on septrin itself

325
overwhelmingly suggests that the sulphonamide component increases both the danger and the cost of the product. I call on the Government to change the licence for the drug with the utmost urgency, before any more people suffer as Kate Reid has suffered.
2.13 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) for allowing me to speak, and for the detailed way in which she put her case.
My interest in septrin began when a constituent, Mr. Beddows, came to see me in November last year. He had been prescribed the drug for bronchitis, but when he took it his skin peeled off and he blew up like a huge balloon. He was in a dangerous condition, and had to go to hospital. Moreover, he could cite other cases among his small circle of friends. A child had lost skin off both legs; an adult had suffered from internal bleeding; another had experienced low blood pressure. According to Mr. Beddows, an action group had established that as many as 25 per cent. of users of septrin were suffering from adverse effects.
Having heard all that, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Cumberlege. I thought it rather complacent: although she admitted that there were adverse side effects, she suggested that they were a matter for GPs, who knew their patients. I wrote to Mr. Beddows, who came to see me again, bringing with him the case against septrin that had been prepared by Professor Richard Lacey—an extremely detailed case.
I wrote again to the Minister, whose reply went a little further this time. She repeated her view that, although dangers existed, they were a matter for GPs; but she also took up Professor Lacey's suggestion that trimethoprim, taken on its own, was the answer. She claimed that that, too, had side effects, but admitted that clinical practice was changing in relation to the prescribing of antibiotics, and that "in some situations"—I believe that in this regard she was following Professor Lacey to some extent—clinical practice
"favours the use of single rather than combination antibiotic therapy."
She added:
"The Medicines Control Agency is reviewing whether the licence for Septrin should reflect this."
I wrote to the Minister again on 2 March, and am still awaiting a reply. In my letter, I asked what evidence there was that serious side effects from co-trimoxazole—septrin—were rare, and what evidence there was that trimethoprim also had side effects. According to Professor Lacey, those side effects are minor in comparison, and trimethoprim would be much safer to use. I hope that the Minister will mention that when he replies.
More and more people are joining the new action group, saying that they, too, have experienced adverse effects. It is time for a complete review of the drug, and if it is found to have serious side effects, I hope that it will be withdrawn from the market without hesitation.
2.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The safety of medicines is an enormously important topic. Many medicines have serious side effects, and many people suffer without knowing that their suffering results from an adverse reaction.
The story of Kate Reid, related to us by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), is very harrowing. I have visited hospitals and seen people who have been badly affected by drugs, including antibiotics. It goes without saying that there is an element of risk in all medicinal compounds, however many efforts are made to test them and avoid side effects; a balance must always be struck.
As the hon. Lady said, co-trimoxazole has been sold as septrin by Wellcome and as bactrim by Roche Products Ltd. Some 100 generic licences for the production of the compound have now been issued. Since 1969, 85 million prescriptions for co-trimoxazole, under its different names, have been issued in this country. Some 3,500 adverse reactions have been reported to the Medicines Control Agency, and 137 deaths have been linked to the use of co-trimoxazole. However, before coming to any conclusions on that, we must assess whether those adverse reactions and the tragic deaths were attributable to co-trimoxazole or to one of its constituent parts. It has been alleged in the press recently—and, I think, implied by the hon. Member for Barking—that sulphamethoxazole, the other constituent, has mainly been responsible for the adverse reactions. I, too, speak as a layman and I am informed by the Medicines Control Agency that no difference exists between the pattern of adverse reactions to co-trimoxazole and the pattern of adverse reactions to trimethoprim alone.
It has been fairly widely alleged that it would be safer to use trimethoprim. I understand that not only is the pattern of adverse reactions to the compound and to the substance similar but a comparable pattern of adverse reactions exists across the range of widely used antibiotics. That takes the debate much wider into the question of the use of antibiotics and how widely they are used, but we are talking specifically about whether a case exists for a review or, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said, for withdrawing co-trimoxazole from the market. I understand that such a case does not exist because, as I said, the pattern of reactions is comparable across the range of antibiotics.
A body of expert literature exists about this subject. It confirms the Medicines Control Agency's advice, which it arrives at through its yellow card system of adverse drug reactions reporting, that no special degree of risk is associated with co-trimoxazole. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, a study has been carried out recently by Dr. Hershel Jick at Boston university, who is a much-renowned expert on drug reactions. It has considered the prescribing data on tens of thousands of people and compared the adverse reactions of co-trimoxazole with those of alternative antibiotics. That work, which I suspect will be published soon, has been made available to researchers and professionals in advance of publication. It confirms that the risk of severe adverse reaction from co-trimoxazole is not only low but comparable with that from other widely used antibiotics.

327
It has also been said during the debate that a lack of information about medicines exists for patients and doctors. Recently, the Medicines Control Agency was asked for the information about co-trimoxazole and it gave 22 pages of the precisely relevant data. I am not aware that anyone has made a case that anything is missing from that data. The equivalent body in America produced 300 pages simply because it handed over the entire file on the product. One cannot measure relevance or efficacy of information by the weight of paper. As far as I know, all the relevant data were made available on that occasion.
The British National Formulary, which is supplied free to all doctors, clearly states the side effects of co-trimoxazole. There is an alarming list, as there often is on antibiotics and many other drugs. It starts with nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, glossitis, rashes and gives a list of Latin names which I shall not go through. No one is in any doubt that there are adverse reactions to the antibiotic, as there are to most others. A large number of adverse reactions, and indeed deaths, are associated with the range of penicillins, but, if one considers the pattern, it is broadly similar. Clearly, therefore, no simple answer exists, except by raising the question of the use of antibiotics.
Co-trimoxazole still has a place. It is less widely used than it was, and trimethoprim is more commonly prescribed than co-trimoxazole.
Ms Hodge: If it is true that co-trimoxazole is less well used than before, will the Minister please just listen to the speeches that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I made today? Instead of coming here with a prepared speech, will the Minister go away and really do a thorough review? The reason that it is used less often is that a safer alternative drug is available which can deal with many of the common ailments. He should consider limiting the licence under which septrin is marketed so that it is used only where it is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Sackville: I have not used a prepared speech. I have some notes that I made during the hon. Lady's speech, but I happen to have spent some time with the Medicines Control Agency to try to find out the detail of the argument. A reason still exists for co-trimoxazole to be in the British National Formulary. The hon. Lady referred to drug resistance. It is well known, and a great
328
body of evidence exists on this, that trimethoprim, given alone, leads to greater resistance to antibiotics. There is a great deal of data to suggest that, in some parts of the country—I have a letter from a leading paediatrician to prove this—there is up to 30 per cent. resistance to trimethoprim given alone. There are cases, and she cited one of them—pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, or PCP, among AIDS victims—where it is clear that trimethoprim given alone leads to too much resistance and quickly becomes ineffective. Other practitioners will tell us that much larger doses of trimethoprim must be given if it is given alone, and that it is possible to give a much smaller dose if it is accompanied by the other constituent of co-trimoxazole.
Clearly, antibiotics have been one of the great advances of modern medicine. Thousands, if not millions of lives, have been saved by them, but, like many other medicines, they have an attendant risk. What we have to be clear about—this is germane to the debate—is whether co-trimoxazole has a higher level of risk than antibiotics generally. The evidence that has been given to me is that that is not the case. The hon. Lady mentioned that there should be a five-yearly review. She will forgive me if I say that the Select Committee was talking about the efficacy and value of drugs rather than safety. Safety is reviewed all the time. There is a yellow card system of adverse reactions reporting in this country which, I hesitate to say, is the envy of the world because it is such a comprehensive system. The Medicines Control Agency advises the Secretary of State about drug safety. That body is also widely respected as probably the agency with the greatest professionalism and probity of any in the world. I challenge the hon. Lady to find another country with a more efficient system.
I can assure all those who are concerned about co-trimoxazole that that drug and all others like it are constantly under review. Drug leaflets will be issued with all drugs in future. Since last year there has been a rolling programme for all medicines to have a drug information leaflet and one has already been approved for co-trimoxazole. We have a high-grade system for the monitoring and licensing of medicines and I can assure the hon. Lady that drug safety will continue to be of the highest priority.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the quality of management of health service trusts and fundholder practices in Scotland. [13626]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The quality of the management of NHS trusts and GP fundholding practices is assessed through their performance in delivering quality patient care. They have been most successful: more patients have been treated, waiting times have fallen and new services have been developed.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Under-Secretary agree that fundholding practices in Scotland are a disgrace and that we do not want them? The Government have recommended that there should be 11,000 fundholding practices, but the amalgamation of some of them has brought the number down to 4,000. In fact, there are only 107 fundholding practices out of the 1,000 practices in Scotland. Trusts have turned the health service into a greyhound service. One of my constituents was taken to hospital with a heart attack at 3 o'clock in the morning. He was sent home alone, in a taxi dressed in just a robe. He was taken back to the hospital at 8 o'clock and died at 10 o'clock. That is a disgrace. The health service should be cleared up.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the unfortunate death of Mr. McGowan in January 1994, the three main recommendations addressed to the Government are being considered by the NHS executive. There are 22 intensive care beds in Glasgow hospitals. Following a review by Greater Glasgow health board, a further four beds have been funded and all aspects of the sheriff's findings at the fatal accident inquiry are being addressed.
    We believe that trusts bring a great many benefits. Record numbers of patients have been treated. There are shorter waiting lists and waiting times and more information and choice is being given to patients. There are new services and improvements. GP fundholders have greater freedom and improved communications. They are providing more services and are developing new or improved services. At least 30 per cent. of the Scots population will benefit from their GP being involved in either standard fundholding or primary care purchasing.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of people of Tayside believe that our health service in Tayside is second to none anywhere in the world? A number of our GPs are fundholders and they, too, believe that they are providing a service that is second to none. Is not it time that we began to talk up the value of our health service and those who are dedicated to it and work in it instead of constantly attacking it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I can announce today that for the relatively few cases where there are serious complaints, we are putting in place a new complaints procedure from April 1996 so that there will be a response from the provider of the service, the opportunity for a review of
    330
    the complaint by a panel with an independent lay chairman and recourse to the health service commissioner. We feel that that will greatly assist in the few cases where there are legitimate complaints.
    Dr. Bray: The public have a duty not to abuse the health service, but will the Minister keep an eye on any tendency by fundholding practices or other general practices to purge patients from their lists in a wholesale manner?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that there are substantial benefits to be gained from GP fundholding. We believe that it will result in a better service for the patients concerned. We do not want to see a deterioration of service, which is the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. McAllion: Are we still dealing with the management of a genuinely national health service? If we are, how can the Minister justify the introduction of local pay bargaining, which means that nurses and midwives in one part of Scotland will be paid less than those in other parts? Since that cannot be justified, will the Minister take the opportunity to announce that he is scrapping local pay bargaining and instructing the management of every NHS trust in Scotland to pay the full 3 per cent. to all nurses and midwives, with no strings attached? If he is not prepared to announce that, will he attend one of the rallies to be held across Scotland on 30 March by nurses and midwives, at which he will be able to explain to them face to face why national pay bargaining in the NHS is good enough for consultants and doctors but not for nurses and midwives?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should be clear that under the management allowance for GP fundholders some 2 per cent. of overall funds for patient care are managed by fundholders. It is not a payment for GPs, but a reimbursement of their administrative costs. Obviously, those at the sharp end of the health service should be paid the going rate for the job.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who (a) required the bodies found and pronounced life extinct by Dr. David Fieldhouse, Bradford police surgeon, to be re-examined for signs of life in the presence of witnesses at a later stage, as described on page 36 of the determination by Sheriff Principal John Mowat QC in respect of Lockerbie and (b) ordered that two days, or a substantial part thereof, should be allowed to lapse between Dr. Fieldhouse's confirmation of life extinct and the subsequent confirmation and certifications; and for what reasons many bodies were left out in the fields for that period of time. [13627]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): In the immediate aftermath of the Lockerbie disaster Dr. Fieldhouse found and pronounced life extinct in 58 bodies. Sheriff Principal John Mowat QC concluded in his determination on the proceedings at the fatal accident inquiry that Dr. Fieldhouse verbally related information concerning his activities to a senior police officer at 7 pm on 22 December 1988. Although this information was also relayed in a letter from Dr. Fieldhouse to the police dated 23 December 1988, the letter was not received at

    331
    Lockerbie until 27 December 1988. The sheriff principal concluded that the verbal information given by Dr. Fieldhouse had, as a result of the circumstances obtaining at that time, been understandably overlooked. In the intervening period arrangements had been made to recover the bodies of the victims by a systematic and meticulous search and recovery operation and all the 58 bodies dealt with by Dr. Fieldhouse were recovered before his letter arrived. The process of search and recovery, unfortunately and inevitably, took some time.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was any dead body taken from the scene, thereby avoiding its inclusion in the official list of those who died?
    Mr. Lang: No.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in the number of unemployed since December 1992. [13628]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Between December 1992 and February 1995, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland fell by 41,700.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that substantial reduction in unemployment is partly due to Scotland's success in attracting new industry? Does he believe that inward investment would be encouraged by Scotland signing up to the social chapter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—adopting a national minimum wage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]—or having a tax-raising Scottish Assembly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]? The cheers of Opposition Members show how blinkered and stupid they are.
    Mr. Kynoch: I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend, and Opposition Members' cheers unfortunately show that they are out of touch with the realities of business.
    My hon. Friend referred to inward investment. In 1993–94, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Industry Department helped to attract 95 projects involving planned investment of £588 million and the creation or safeguarding of more than 11,000 jobs. If the United Kingdom signed the social chapter or if Scotland had higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom, many of those jobs would be put in jeopardy.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister share the concern of the people of Scotland at the loss of high-skill jobs at the BBC in recent weeks? Will he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State organise an urgent meeting with John Birt, Director-General of the BBC, to ensure that there are no further job losses, as there will come a point when BBC Scotland will become incapable of carrying out its role as the major broadcaster in Scotland if it loses more skilled staff?
    Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but, with due respect, it is up to Mr. Birt to decide how best to run the BBC. I have a lot more faith than the hon. Gentleman in the skills and expertise of the BBC in Scotland in making its case for maintaining a sound, professional and positive presence in Scotland.

    University Budgets
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with vice-principals of universities to discuss their budgetary requirements. [136291]
    Mr. Lang: I met the committee of Scottish higher education principals in June 1994. We discussed a number of matters, including the funding of higher education.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is not it a pity that the Secretary of State did not listen to the committee? Does not he realise from the settlement last week that not only are students now driven to poverty but universities and colleges in Scotland find that they cannot make ends meet? Why does not the Secretary of State listen to the distinguished principals of the Scottish institutions and reverse the cuts that he imposed on the vast majority of them last week or tell them where his so-called efficiency savings have come from?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Funding for higher education institutions has been increased by £25 million to £618 million for next year—an increase of 4.2 per cent. What is more, resources available to students through grants and student loans have increased by 19 per cent. in real terms since 1989–90.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some 33 per cent. of those in the relevant age group are now in higher education in Scotland compared with some 17 per cent. under the last Labour Government? Does he agree that that has not been at the cost of any drop in quality? For example, the independent teaching assessment placed four Scottish universities—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Strathclyde and, of course, St. Andrews—in the "excellent" category.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right on both points. Not only has participation doubled in the relevant age groups since the Government took office but, as he points out, there has been no loss in the quality of the performance of our best universities. No fewer than 30 per cent. of the departments appraised have been categorised as excellent.
    Mr. Wallace: In the light of what the Secretary of State has just confirmed about the increase in student numbers, will he comment on the remark made by Professor John Arbuthnott, the convener of the committee of Scottish higher education principals? In the aftermath of the announcement last week, he said that this was expansion on the cheap which would further threaten the ability of the institutions to maintain quality. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repudiate the suggestion made yesterday by Professor Donald Leach of Queen Margaret college that students should take out loans to pay modest fees for the courses on which they have embarked?
    Mr. Lang: Happily, higher education principals are rather more positive and sensible in their attitude to these matters than the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the funding of students, even the National Union of Students is now looking at more positive and creative ways of achieving better funding for students.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Secretary of State consider how local enterprise companies could help get the evil

    333
    drug temazepam off the streets in Renfrewshire? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the local enterprise company could play a role—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I wonder whether I am reading the question correctly. It is about the budgetary requirements of universities: we are on Question 4.
    Mr. McMaster: Could the LECs work in tandem with universities to use their research facilities to examine how temazepam could be taken off the streets? It would be of great advantage to the police in their efforts to get the drug off the streets if the Secretary of State made it a schedule 3 rather than a schedule 4 drug.
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the relevant bodies will have heard the hon. Gentleman's subtle, inventive and creative question—perhaps a university or higher education institution should establish a course on the matter.
    Mrs. Fyfe: In this week of science, engineering and technology, will the Secretary of State tell us which of his Government's policies he thinks contributes most to higher education, and particularly to courses that cost more to take but are essential for our economic revival? Could it be the policy of making higher education institutions do more with less money for each student? Could it be the fiasco of the Student Loans Company, which puts more energy into chasing debts than awarding loans? Could it be the Government's recent decision—contrary to that of all previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour—to withdraw the allowance for mature students and to force who knows how many into giving up courses for which they have worked and sacrificed to gain entry? Our students are trying to learn, but when will the Government ever learn?
    Mr. Lang: I can assume only that the hon. Lady's question is prompted by embarrassment at the Opposition's lamentable record on higher education when in government, compared with the record that we have achieved in the past 15 years. Perhaps she did not hear me point out that the number of students partaking of higher education has doubled since this Government took office and that the quality of the education that they are obtaining is in many cases excellent; that funding next year is up by 4.2 per cent.; and that there will also be a record number of more than 118,000 places in Scottish institutions next year.

    Local Enterprise Companies
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the new boundaries for local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement. [13630]
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on new boundaries for local enterprise companies after he has received and considered recommendations from Scottish Enterprise.
    Mr. Hogg: Why are the Government taking such an inordinate time to reach a conclusion on what should be a relatively simple matter? Should not Members of the House, who are responsible for the funding of Scottish Enterprise and the enterprise companies, be consulted? The Government have not consulted the House properly, and are they not trying to draw up boundaries after local government reorganisation? They should have known
    334
    their intentions in this important matter a long time ago. How does the Minister explain the Government's incompetence?
    Mr. Kynoch: I must give the hon. Member full marks for his persistence because he has been a firm advocate of certain boundaries as regards his area. He will be well aware that, with his colleagues, he visited my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) when he held office, to discuss the subject, and that he has had discussions with Scottish Enterprise, as have local enterprise companies, the new town development corporations and many other interested organisations, including local authorities. There has been very wide consultation on the subject and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to ensure that all aspects are covered before a decision is reached. I understand that we are close to receiving recommendations from Scottish Enterprise. When those are forthcoming, we will inform the House.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the boundary change that will take Helensburgh into Argyll, socialist Labour-controlled Dumbarton district council is carrying out a massive asset-stripping exercise in Helensburgh, right down to removing glasshouses from gardens? Is not that absolutely disgraceful and does it not ignore the fact that people in Helensburgh have paid for the assets through their council tax and community charge in recent years?
    Mr. Kynoch: I think that my hon. Friend might be talking about local government boundaries, as opposed to local enterprise companies. I am sure that he will be aware that there have been significant consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the distribution of assets, and that the matter is still under discussion.
    Mr. Worthington: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) does not know his local enterprise company from his local authority.
    When we met the Minister's predecessor, he agreed that any proposal for Dunbartonshire that involved Clydebank and Dumbarton being linked with Renfrew was absurd and that any absorption of Clydebank or any other authorities into Glasgow would be absurd. He also agreed that the present boundaries for the LEC were sound. Does this Minister agree, or will he also be changed soon?
    Mr. Kynoch: I believe that the hon. Member made representations to my predecessor and to Scottish Enterprise. I am rather more patient than him: I want to await the results of the other consultations to ensure that a proper argument is presented and that the decision that we reach is based on the widest possible consultation.

    Scottish Assembly
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from businesses with regard to a Scottish Assembly. [13631]
    Mr. Lang: It is clear from what Scottish business men and women tell me that they believe that the Labour party's proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers would, if implemented, immensely

    335
    damage Scottish business. They fear that it would raise costs, undermine confidence, jeopardise investment and inward investment and destroy jobs.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that businesses go further than that and are threatening to pack up and leave Scotland, taking jobs and investment with them? They fear the proposed Scottish Assembly with its tax-raising powers of 3p in the pound, which will affect every family in Scotland to the tune of £4 a week.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the considerable dangers that would flow from the creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. Although 3p in the pound would amount to more than £6 a week for the average family, it would be only the beginning of what the Labour party would seek to achieve through a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, as it would account for only some 2 per cent. of the present Scottish Office block. The burden of higher taxation, which Scotland alone would face under a Scottish Parliament, would penalise the Scottish people and drive industry away.
    Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State is now aware that the people of Ireland will have the right to a referendum. Why do not the people of Scotland have that right?
    Mr. Lang: The people of Scotland had a referendum in 1979, in which they failed to support the Labour party's proposals.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In an effort to foster greater understanding of how the House deals with Scottish business, will my right hon. Friend consider holding a series of seminars on the way in which the House operates? As a matter of urgency, will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to the first one, as on Sunday he showed an alarming ignorance about how the House deals with Scottish business?
    Mr. Lang: If the Leader of the Opposition does not know how the House of Commons handles Scottish legislation, how on earth is he in a position to say how a Scottish Parliament should do so?
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State list the representations received from businesses in Scotland about the current policies exercised by this Unionist Government? For example, will he explain why the tourist and whisky industries are now subjected to substantial pressures as a result of the mothballing of three distilleries, and why the fishing industry, which is vital to communities in north-east Scotland, is not protected by the Government within the European Union?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady has managed to ask three questions about three different industries. I shall answer in the context of the question that was tabled, which relates to a proposed Scottish Assembly. The creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, adding another burden of taxation and bureaucracy on the people of Scotland, would damage rather than help the industries to which the hon. Lady referred.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the roles for a Scottish Parliament—the Labour party will deliver a Scottish Parliament after the next election and it will be universally popular among all
    336
    sections of the Scottish people—will be to take back into full democratic control Scotland's water supplies? Today, on the anniversary of the 97 per cent. bloody nose that people gave the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Strathclyde referendum, will he recognise that his quangoisation will transform Scotland's water, which is among the safest, cleanest and cheapest in the world, into among the most expensive in Europe? Why does he not recognise the folly of his arrogant refusal to listen to the people of Scotland and abandon that plan now?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is lamentably ignorant about the facts of the matter. I have no doubt that the creation of those new water and sewerage authorities will lead to a more efficient delivery of water and sewerage systems in Scotland at the least extra cost to the Scottish people. I am concerned about the capacity that a Scottish Parliament would have to abolish the uniform business rate, whereby businesses in Scotland now pay rates averaging 43p in the pound compared with the 76p in the pound that they would otherwise pay.

    Value-added Indicators
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in incorporating value-added indicators in the performance data available in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement. [13632]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Her Majesty's inspectors already provide schools with tables showing the value added in the upper stages of secondary schools. Work is now under way to develop additional measures of value added for use in both primary and secondary schools, and those measures will be tried out in a number of schools this year.
    Mr. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the scaremongering and the misrepresentation of the Opposition, Scottish parents have come to value the information given by schools? Does he further agree that information should not be restricted simply to examination results, but should cover as many areas as possible in the life of a school, so that parents, teachers and pupils know as much as possible about what is going on, and how it is achieved, in schools in Scotland which are, after all, the centre of so many of our communities?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The British social attitudes report published last year showed that no fewer than 73 per cent. of the public supported the publication of examination results, which the Opposition originally opposed. I also agree with my hon. Friend about making more information available about extra-curricular activities. We already encourage schools to publish in their handbooks information on achievements by their pupils in sport, music and the arts. I am also glad to say that we have made more information available on truancy by publishing the relevant results. They showed that authorised and unauthorised absences averaged about 6 per cent. in primary schools in 1993–94. That is roughly the same as each primary school missing two school weeks out of 38 and 10 million half-days lost. There is

    337
    therefore a heavy responsibility on parents to keep a close eye on school attendance in the interests of their children. We are making more information available, not less.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister believe that there is a direct, inverse or no relationship between the value added by schools and the spending on them?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We must spend the necessary sums on schools. We believe that the value added should be additional to information about exams and that that information must be made available. The COSLA working party and the Scottish Office Education Department are taking that matter forward.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is it not undisputed that the performance of all Scotland's schools will be affected by the costly, unwanted and ill-prepared reorganisation of local government? The creation of 32 education authorities, where previously there were just 11, is bound to have a disruptive effect on the education system. Why should Scotland's children pay the price in a damaging disruption to their education, on the basis of a reorganisation that was not wanted by the Scottish people, is far more costly than the Government pretend and was designed simply for the convenience of the Scottish Conservative party? Does the Minister agree that two weeks tomorrow, when elections take place across Scotland, the gerrymandering in which the Government have indulged will boomerang because they will win not a single council in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member is wrong on every count. Let us take, for example, Borders regional council, which is one of the smallest regional authorities in Scotland. It has an excellent education service. I must tell him that the last time local government was reorganised, 18,000 extra local authority officials were created in two years, which made the whole process much more bureaucratic. We believe that simplifying the processes of local government will make it more responsive to local democracy, which we wholeheartedly support.

    Private Residential Homes
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the ownership and management of private residential homes for the elderly. [13633]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the past six months, my right hon. Friend has received four letters about standards in residential care homes.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unethical for a medical practitioner who owns such a home to act as the general practitioner to his own residents? Does he agree that confused, elderly people, particularly those suffering from dementia, should have ready access to independent medical assessment and treatment? When will he introduce a statutory code of practice to outlaw medical practitioners, lawyers and accountants from acting in a professional capacity vis-a-vis residents of their own residential homes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct that nothing currently prohibits the arrangement that he mentioned. That will be considered by the Scottish Office working group. There have been calls for changes
    338
    in the legislation and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Office officials are considering such issues in general as a result of the disturbing incident at Glenglova. We are determined to see the highest standards imposed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the registration of residential care homes is in the gift of a local authority and if those high standards are not maintained, registration can be withdrawn.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about appeals. There have been about six appeals and, in the vast majority of cases, high standards are maintained and the local authorities have the necessary powers. However, we are carefully considering whether the time scale should be altered, as has been suggested. That is one of the issues that is currently being considered by the working group.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that, because those residential homes are very expensive, costing about £300 to £400 a week, many people who were persuaded to buy their council houses must now sell them to pay for their care in a residential home? How does that equate with Mrs. Thatcher's famous wealth trickle-down theory, whereby everyone was to be able to have their house and pass it on to their children and grandchildren? I can tell the Minister that, as I am sure that he is aware, the people feel very betrayed as they witness more and more geriatric care beds disappearing from the national health service.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is not clear from the tenor of the hon. Lady's question whether she is demanding tax relief or what solution she would propose. It has always been the position, under successive Governments, that elderly persons who live in residential homes can be charged when circumstances warrant it.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that many dedicated men and women do not want their loved ones to go into homes when they get dementia and Alzheimer's disease; they want to support their loved ones in their own home. Yet the Minister must know that care in the community is only words—it is non-existent. The Government should be doing more to support organisations such as the Alzheimer's Association for Scotland, which can support relatives who look after their loved ones.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are providing substantial sums for care in the community. The Government have provided a further £55 million this year for community care infrastructure. Obviously, the resources must follow the patient and the hon. Member is correct to say that many families have a strong preference for looking after their relatives in the community. There are also various grants; we are giving about £15 million a year for bridging finance and we shall ensure that the necessary resources follow the patient.

    Scottish Economy
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has recently had with the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [13634]
    Mr. Lang: I regularly meet the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a variety of issues relating to the Scottish economy.
    Dr. Reid: The performance of the Secretary of State on the Scottish economy can be summed up in two words—
    Mr. McMaster: Which two?
    Dr. Reid: They are not the two that my hon. Friend is thinking about—they are Rolls-Royce.
    I remind the Secretary of State that, although Ministers may have forgotten Rolls-Royce, Opposition Members have not. Does he realise that there will be, not only a loss of jobs, important though that is, but a potential loss of skills at the forefront of technology from Scotland and the United Kingdom to Germany? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do anything, will the Government and the bunch of pathetic Ministers who have sat idly by while Rolls-Royce has been sold down the tube in Scotland move aside and make way for those of us who will do something about it?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lang: If that is a threat that the next Labour Government, if ever elected, would interfere in every commercial decision made by every company in this country, I am sure that the electorate will take note of that and react accordingly.
    Rolls-Royce, like all companies trading internationally and needing to trade competitively, has to take commercial decisions to adjust its dispositions, the activities in which it is involved, the people it employs and the places where it employs them, to ensure that it does that in the most effective and competitive way. That does not alter the fact that 4,000 employees will remain at six Rolls-Royce sites in Scotland.
    On the economy in a broader sense, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged that unemployment in his constituency has already decreased by no less than 650 in the current year.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Rolls-Royce, among others, has made massive investments outside the United Kingdom? Does he further recognise that Rolls-Royce has recently acquired Alison Engines in the United States, thus making Rolls-Royce one of the three largest, if not the largest, aero-engine manufacturers? That can only be good for Scotland, but it could all be put at risk by the nonsense of an assembly with tax-raising powers that would drive further jobs away from Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Rolls-Royce operates in an international, competitive marketplace. Its two major competitors, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney, have had massive job cuts, including the 14,000 redundancies announced in 1993. At the same time, Boeing announced 80,000 job losses. It is an inevitable part of the developing economic situation and the competitive nature of those industries that they have to adjust the size of their work force from time to time.
    Mr. Watson: The description of the economy that the Secretary of State and his friends give would not be recognised by any of the 4,339 people in Glasgow, Central constituency who are unemployed and eligible to claim benefit. That figure constitutes 15 per cent. of the
    340
    working population, and at a cost of £9,000 per person that means that £39 million is paid per year to keep those people in my constituency on the dole. When will the Government understand that, instead of talking about the so-called flexible labour market, which means part-time jobs and insecurity, they should start spending money on the economy, on training and on infrastructure, to get people back to work instead of keeping them on the dole?
    Mr. Lang: That is what is happening. The number of people in work in Scotland has risen by 60,000 in the past decade. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, since January 1987, unemployment has fallen by 3,400. Unemployment in Scotland is now, for the first time since records have been kept, lower than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which in turn is more than two points lower than the European average.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a subject which is on a different scale from Rolls-Royce, would my right hon. Friend welcome the reputation of Lanark blue cheese? No food poisoning cases appear to have been attributed to that cheese and we must try to ensure that there is no interference in that good Scottish enterprise.
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's commendation of that fine Scottish product. It is one of many fine Scottish food products that are gaining an increasing market share outside Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been heard by those responsible for handling the matter.
    Mr. Salmond: When will the Secretary of State take action to protect Scotland's economic Infrastructure? Is he aware that last week his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport compared the subsidy to Motorail and sleeper services in Scotland to the subsidy for passengers in the south-east of England? Will he inform the Secretary of State for Transport that £1.5 billion was spent on capital and investment grants in Network SouthEast and London Underground in this financial year compared with, at most, a few million pounds on the sleeper and Motorail services in Scotland? What hope is there for a consultation exercise when the rolling stock is stuck up a siding, the Secretary of State for Transport has already made up his mind and the Scottish Office team is in a state of paralysis, unable to defend Scottish interests?
    Mr. Lang: I suppose it demonstrates the narrowness of the hon. Gentleman's horizons that he cannot understand that cash invested in rail infrastructure south of Scotland also benefits Scotland. The £300 million upgrading of the east coast main line benefited Scotland and the £600 million investment plan for the west coast line will benefit Scotland. The other resources that have been brought into Scotland benefit Scotland. It is a measure of the short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness of the Scottish National party that it does not understand the benefits for Scotland that accrue from the services such as Mossend and the channel tunnel. Those are economic infrastructure developments that have been made under this Government for Scotland's benefit.
    Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State will be aware that Scottish Enterprise has trumpeted the strategy of high-quality, high-skilled jobs. When he next meets the chairman, will he discuss the scandal of low pay in Scotland, where one in 20 of the working population works for poverty pay? Does he think that it is fair that

    341
    107,000 people in Scotland work for £2.50 an hour while the heads of privatised utilities like British Gas earn £250 per hour? Has not that unfairness, whereby the rich are getting richer on the backs of the poor, resulted in the rejection of the Government's economic policies? When will the Secretary of State start to do something in economic terms for the ordinary people of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The people of Scotland will not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman. There are many high-paid and well-qualified jobs in Scotland in a far richer and more diverse economic infrastructure than ever existed under Labour. Perhaps that is why net disposable incomes in Scotland are among the highest in the United Kingdom.

    Road Improvements
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent to date, including land acquisition costs, on (a) the A7 Falla Hill to Heriot improvement, (b) the A7 Bow Straight widen and regrade and (c) the A7 Whin improvement. [13635]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The total expenditure, including land acquisition costs, on the A7 Falla Hill to Heriot improvement, the widening and regrading of the A7 Bow Straight and the A7 Whin improvement is £49,811, £5,405 and £35,523 respectively.
    Sir David Steel: It would be helpful if the Minister could inform the House when the decision is likely to be taken about detrunking roads such as the A7. Does he accept that it would be intolerable if the cost of the improvements that he has outlined were to fall on the new Borders council without a guarantee that extra funds will be provided for that purpose?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Decisions will be made shortly about the trunking or detrunking of various roads in Scotland. The three schemes that I have mentioned are old schemes which will provide overtaking opportunities. Each of the three jobs will cost £1.5 million, making a total of £4.5 million. Primarily for environmental reasons, we believe that it would be more beneficial at present to spend that sum on the A68. The sum, approaching £100,000, which has been spent so far is not necessarily lost or wasted as the new authority can take it forward if the road is detrunked.

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish TUC to discuss the problems of the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [13636]
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Galloway: It is apparent from their answers so far that none of the three stooges opposite has any idea what is happening in the Scottish manufacturing sector. In washing their hands of the haemorrhage of high-skilled, high-tech and high-paid jobs from Rolls-Royce and the BBC, they fail to see that they are presiding over the creation of a skivvy economy, where workers warehouse
    342
    and sell other people's manufactured goods and run after tourists trying to sell them hamburgers and ice creams. Why do Ministers persist in equating temporary, low-paid jobs like that with the kind of jobs that we used to have in Scotland which involved making things, building things and mining things? When will they clear out and give the Scottish economy a chance?
    Mr. Kynoch: I expected the hon. Gentleman to come out with that sort of rubbish. Unfortunately, he does not spend enough time in Scotland to see the success stories. Scottish business is enjoying record exports, record output and significant inward investment. If he were only to visit the Dunfermline area and see some of the new jobs that have been created—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has asked his question and he must listen to the answer.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member does not realise that business in Scotland must adapt to what the market requires. There is no point in trying to push old companies and old manufacturing practices in a new marketplace. Scotland currently has a significant share—35 per cent.—of Europe's personal computer manufacturing sector. That is an on-going industry. Industry in Scotland has changed and the sooner the hon. Gentleman wakes up to that and starts living in the future rather than the past the better.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Trades Union Congress is a great deal more realistic than Opposition Members, judging from the nonsense that we have heard from them this afternoon? Does he agree that manufacturing productivity is a key figure? Each person employed in the Scottish manufacturing sector now produces more than £30,000-worth of manufactured goods. Is that figure not a great deal better than those in not only the rest of the United Kingdom but in countries such as Japan?
    Mr. Kynoch: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Business can succeed only by achieving the best possible levels of productivity in order to compete in world markets. That is what Scottish business is doing. Scottish business is looking up while Opposition Members are looking backwards and down.
    Mr. Connarty: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he explain to them what he will do to correct the wrong that interference by the Scottish Office has done to the celebrations for VE day in Scotland? The Department of Employment has confirmed a bank holiday on 8 May in addition to the traditional 1 May spring bank holiday. Yet correspondence between the former Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry and the CBI has led to the totally nonsensical situation whereby some Government agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise, the Benefits Agency, banks and schools will be on holiday on 8 May because the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has declared that extra holiday, but the Post Office in Scotland is threatened with industrial action because it is stealing the traditional May holiday.
    The Secretary of State has a letter dated 5 March from his own trade unions asking him to give the Scottish Office an additional holiday for VE day. When are we

    343
    going to celebrate VE day rather than denigrate it by making workers pay on 1 May for the extra holiday they should have had on 8 May?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has not pointed out that VE day is a bank holiday in Scotland. He wants extra holidays and that is totally against the line of trying to achieve extra productivity. Every holiday has to be paid for, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not denigrate VE day by making it into a party political issue.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance to my constituents in Ayrshire and other Ayrshire Members of the M77 link with the M8? Does he deplore the activities of those who would stop construction work on that road and does he welcome the excellent letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which sets out in detail the benefits of that particular route? Will he encourage my right hon. Friend to pass a copy to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as his support would be welcome also?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that he backs Strathclyde regional council in ensuring that the road is completed on time.
    Mr. Chisholm: Did the Minister see the report in one of this morning's newspapers that in the last nine months of last year 7,600 full-time jobs were lost in Scotland? That was not balanced by the creation of 9,900 part-time jobs. It may seem to be a reduction in unemployment, but although part-time jobs are welcome to some people, they are mostly low-paid and insecure. Is it any surprise that thousands of Scots without jobs or on low pay know only about the feel-bad factor and not about the feel-good factor?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the definition of part time includes working as many as 30 hours a week. He should also be aware that the majority of people working part time do so from choice. The statistics show that only 14 per cent. of those reported in the autumn 1994 labour force survey as working part time wanted full-time jobs.

    Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the highlands and islands in the coming financial year. [13637]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The prospects for continuing growth towards long-term economic prosperity in the highlands and islands look very encouraging. This is due in no small measure to the continuing success of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Macdonald: Given that land is the basic economic resource of the highlands, is it not profoundly wrong that large estates continue to be sold on the open- market to the highest bidder without any consultation or agreement with the local communities who live and work on the land? That is especially wrong, particularly when the local communities have expressed a preference to take on the ownership and management of the land. Given the uncertainty over the sale of the Isle of Eigg, will the Scottish Office explore with local communities ways in
    344
    which the goal of community ownership can be realised, perhaps with the help of the National Trust or other similar organisations?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand the concern of local residents on the Isle of Eigg, but interference in land sale would paralyse the land market and deny large areas of Scotland the benefits that many far-sighted landowners bring to the land they own. We believe that the way forward is through partnership, as recently evidenced by the Cairngorms Partnership, involving owners, local authorities, conservation bodies and community councils. I piloted the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 through the House to protect the Scottish countryside and wildlife, but excessive regulation would be as inadvisable as the EC directive to bring back wolves to the wilds of Scotland.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister acknowledge that the economic prospects of the area are hardly likely to be improved by the cancellation decision that the highland region is facing in respect of the jobs and enterprise training units, or JET units, as a direct result of the capital squeeze by the Scottish Office? Following the discussions that have taken place between the three Members of Parliament representing the highland seats, the trade unions involved, the regional convener of Highland regional council and the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, will the Minister back the call that at the next meeting next month, when the matter is to be especially considered by the regional council, there should be a one-year moratorium on a decision? In tandem, is he prepared to meet a delegation from the area to discuss the problem in detail to see whether a way through the funding impasse can be found in the next 12 months? Will he agree to do that and does he support that approach?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will certainly see a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman. This year's Highlands and Islands Enterprise budget has increased to £77.4 million. The hon. Gentleman might not think that relevant, but it helps a lot with training, and we want the best possible training in the highlands and islands. The hon. Gentleman appears to agree.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that Labour wants increased rail investment in every part of Britain because we acknowledge that that will mean better communications for Scotland and manufacturing jobs in Scotland? That is just common sense. As to the specific issue of sleepers and Motorail, does the Minister accept that all hon. Members realise that consultation after services have been withdrawn is a fraud? Is not he aware that anyone who knows anything about the subject realises that figures adduced to prove a ludicrously high subsidy for sleepers and Motorail are also a fraud? Will the Minister use Scottish Office powers to provide whatever subsidy is necessary only for the short period that would allow full and proper consultation? It is within the power of the Scottish Office to ensure real and honest consultation, but it is also within its power to condemn services without a trial. Which will the Minister do?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot agree to divert funds from education, health or social work for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As to the figures, the subsidy for highland sleeper and Motorail

    345
    services in 1993–94 was £2.6 million excluding infrastructure, or £6.6 million including infrastructure—a subsidy met by the taxpayer of £180 and £450 respectively. The regulator made it clear that any final decision on minimum service level is for the franchising director after his consultation on ScotRail's public service requirement later this year. Before the hon. Gentleman dismisses that consultation, I emphasise that the franchising director has undertaken to examine timetabling flexibility in daytime connections. That will be important for day services to Fort William, which will tie up with other services, including the new sleeper service between Glasgow and Paris early next year.

    Hospital Construction Costs
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the capital costs of building an NHS maternity hospital capable of coping with 3,000 births per annum. [13638]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are no current plans for a new maternity hospital of a 3,000 births per annum capacity in Scotland that would provide the basis of a meaningful costing.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will be aware that Glasgow health board is trying to close the most modern maternity facility in its area, at Rutherglen. That is despite the example set in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), where a similar closure led to the loss of lives. Bearing in mind the capital costs of replacing throughout Scotland stand-alone hospitals not located on the same site as acute services, will the Minister tell Glasgow health board to leave Rutherglen maternity hospital alone?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have no proposal before us, so we cannot make an exact estimate of the costs of another hospital providing maternity services—but we envisage that they will be in the range of £7 million to £12 million. The board will make its final recommendations once it has considered the outcome of the consultation that ends on 30 April. The board recognises the importance of organising maternity care with close access to the full range of support acute facilities. Any suggestion of closure would have to be put before the Secretary of State. In making a final decision, Ministers would have to be satisfied that a better service was being put in place.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that his Government's policies on maternity services are leading to the removal of good, locally based services from hospitals? Does he further agree that the centralisation of maternity services, as has already happened in Fife with the closure of Dunfermline's maternity hospital, can lead to increased risk to mothers and babies? That was tragically demonstrated in my constituency 10 days ago when an unborn baby died as he and his mother were being transported from Dunfermline to Kirkcaldy. Will the Minister listen to what the communities have to say and keep Rutherglen open and restore maternity services to Dunfermline?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must repeat to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire)—she raised many of these subjects in an earlier Adjournment debate—that the medical profession considered it
    346
    extremely important to have close access to the full range of acute facilities. In making certain that the high standards are maintained, it is, of course, very necessary to ensure that mothers have access to all the necessary services. I should like to examine the circumstances of the very distressing case that the hon. Lady mentioned, and I shall bear her comments in mind.

    National Parks
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage to discuss national parks. [13639]
    Mr. Lang: I have not met the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage to discuss national parks. However, my ministerial colleagues and I have regular meetings with the chairman. On a number of occasions, we have discussed the management of the countryside.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is it not time that Scotland had its own national parks, to look after the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis and Glencoe? Why does the Minister persist with the voluntary principle, which, as Scottish Natural Heritage's own corporate plan says, is too costly and unworkable? Is not it time, therefore, that the Minister started to protect the countryside rather than his friends the landowners?
    Mr. Lang: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in the local authorities in the area, or in their capacity to work together in the interests of their area. The fact is that the national park concept is not an unqualified success south of the border. Indeed, Scottish Natural Heritage supports the voluntary principle and the proposals that working parties have developed separately for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Our response has been to accept the recommendation of the working party, and I believe that it can be made to work successfully.
    Mr. Robathan: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, will he raise the question of the spread of mink throughout Scotland from the national parks in England and Wales, and now, indeed, to the outer Hebrides? The impact that those animals are having on the ecology, the wildlife and the economy based on fishing, in Scotland as elsewhere, is extremely damaging.
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that my hon. Friend may well be right about that. It is not a new phenomenon, however. Mink first escaped from captivity many decades ago, and I am confident that every effort is being made to contain them and the damage that they do.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the importance to the local borders heritage of the special bridge built by Rennie straddling the Tweed at Kelso? Will he look urgently at the recent decision to refuse capital consent to build a replacement road bridge across the river to save and protect the bridge for the natural heritage of the borders in the coming years?
    Mr. Lang: I know that that is a matter to which the council attaches considerable importance, and it comes

    347
    under regular consideration. It has to compete with other priorities, but I will invite my hon. Friend with responsibilities for these matters to have another look at it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the finest countryside in Scotland will be spoilt if Scottish Power is allowed to go ahead with its interconnector to Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that local people are deeply concerned that Scottish Power had unlimited resources to present its case, while the objectors were severely inhibited by a lack of resources and by the fact that Mr. James McCulloch, the senior reporter, seemed to be bending over backwards in favour of Scottish Power? I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account when he considers the report from the reporter.
    Mr. Lang: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as he will know, the matter is currently before a public local inquiry, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment.

    Fishing
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are estimated annually to fish in Scottish waters (a) commercially and (b) for personal or other reasons; what quantity and value of fish is caught; and if he will make a statement. [13641]
    Mr. Kynoch: About 9,400 commercial sea fishermen are employed in Scotland, of whom about 1,300 work part time. Fish landings at Scottish ports in 1993 amounted to some 519,000 tonnes, at around £278 million in value.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend enjoy Scottish fish—particularly Scottish salmon—as much as I do, and as much as the rest of the world? What measures is he taking to increase the supply of Scottish salmon, bearing in mind its great value to the Scottish and, indeed, the British economy?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend properly addresses his question to one of those who know about the matter. In fact, the best Scottish salmon come from the River Dee.
    There is much debate about how to preserve salmon stocks in Scottish rivers. Many people are worried about the effect of the north-east drift nets. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has made representations to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that every effort is made to preserve and increase fish stocks in Scottish rivers.

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Welsh Grand Committees),
    That the matter of health care in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some of the lawyers representing families in the Ayrshire child abuse case have been quoted in the press as saying that Members of Parliament should not raise matters on behalf of their constituents. I represent seven of the social workers involved, and I consider that the action taken by those lawyers constitutes intimidation: they are trying to stop me performing my role as their Member of Parliament. I hope that you will make it clear, Madam Speaker—today or on some other occasion—that not even the most distinguished Scots lawyers can stop Members of Parliament looking after the interests of their constituents.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that, like every other hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman is not intimidated by any such comments made outside the House. All hon. Members have a duty to carry out their responsibilities on behalf of their constituents, and they will certainly be able to do so for as long as I am Speaker.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware, as we all are, that one of the most distressing experiences that our constituents can have is having their homes burgled. Have you seen this morning's report that 1.5 million burglaries take place in Britain every year—more than in any other country in Europe? According to the report, the chances are that, every year, 65 in every 1,000 homes will be burgled, compared with 37 per 1,000 in Holland and 30
350
per 1,000 in Germany. Is it not time that the Home Secretary dealt with that disgraceful position? Has he asked permission to make a statement to the House?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. What the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is by no means a point of order; it is a matter that he must pursue through the normal channels.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible to quote, in an early-day motion, the words of a respected Member of the other place, who said today:
"This lot are a complete shower…and one of the worst Governments I can remember"
under the Prime Minister's "feeble leadership"? That was said by Lord Whitelaw—
Madam Speaker: Order. I certainly will not give a ruling without notice and without seeing the full context of what the hon. Gentleman intends to put into the early-day motion. If he will let me see that, I shall give my ruling.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is directly responsible only for the Metropolitan police, has he asked to make a statement about the success of Operation Bumblebee, which has substantially reduced the number of domestic burglaries in London?
Madam Speaker: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House only yesterday or the day before—certainly this week—if any statements are to be made in the House, they will be on the Annunciator screen by lunchtime so that we are all aware that they are going to be made.

School Transport Safety
3.34 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the safety of school transport by imposing stricter standards for school vehicles; by providing for the licensing by local authorities of such vehicles and their drivers; by requiring the supervision of children travelling in school vehicles; and by permitting controls on heavy goods vehicles on school transport routes.
The School Transport Safety Bill is about saving lives—children's lives. First, I want to record my appreciation of the national Belt Up School Kids group, whose secretary, Pat Harris, does an excellent job in campaigning on this issue, and my local branch of that organisation, the Carnwath and Biggar branch, led by Sherley Gallant, the chair; Helen McKenzie, the secretary; and John Pate, the treasurer. I should like to give a special thanks to Shona Cousins, who is also a member of that group. Shona is the mother of Tony Cousins, a young boy who, along with his school colleague Francis Scorgie, died in a school bus accident in my constituency on that terrible and tragic day, 17 February 1994.
My Bill will make seat belts compulsory on all vehicles transporting schoolchildren. It will end the obscenity of three children in two seats. It will empower local authorities to license vehicles and, indeed, to license drivers. It will require supervision of children travelling to and from school in coaches other than by the driver of the vehicle. Equally important, it will control heavy and awkward vehicles using school routes in rural areas where children are travelling to and from school.
The date of February 1994 will live with me for the rest of my life. Two children in my constituency received injuries that caused their death. Those two children left home at 8 o'clock in the morning, as they had done hundreds of times before, but, unfortunately, on that day, they did not return to their families. There has been a great national campaign on the issue and great concern has been expressed about seat belts and the safety of children travelling to and from school. In response to that great concern, on 19 July the then Secretary of State for Transport stated, in answer to a written question, that the Government intended to act ahead of the European Commission and to legislate to make seat belts compulsory on minibuses and coaches. That was welcome. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister with responsibility for such matters at the time, is here to listen to the debate.
Unfortunately, eight or nine months have passed since that statement and little or nothing has been done. I am Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. It set up a Sub-Committee to consider the transport safety aspects and the competency of member
352
states vis-à-vis the European Commission's proposals. We took evidence from the former Minister way back in July. Because nothing had happened, we decided to call the Minister for Transport in London, whom I am pleased to see present, to give evidence. By coincidence, lo and behold, the day before the Minister appeared before that Committee, another statement was issued by the Department of Transport. It mirrored what had been said nine months previously. As happened nine months ago, I did not scorn that statement too much because I welcomed any move that would help to deal with the problem, but I say to the Minister that it is the same as the statement on 19 July. It is too little, too late and it promises to deal with the problem in another 18 months. God knows how many children will lose their lives in that time.
I have argued that seat belts will save lives, but I am not arguing that seat belts are the only thing that we need to have to save those lives. That is why my Bill addresses the problem of supervision. If we have seat belts in coaches, the wearing of them has to be enforced in some way. When there are 30 or 40 children on a coach or bus going to school, they have to be supervised.
It is important to look at the problem of licensing vehicles and it is necessary to have vehicles that are properly designed for the purpose. Equally, it is necessary to license drivers to ensure that they are competent to carry out their task. It is also important to look at the problem of traffic management, especially in rural areas such as my own in Clydesdale, where there are miles and miles of narrow roads on which cumbersome coaches transport children. We have to get rid of the nonsense, the obscenity, of overcrowding where three children sit in two seats. My Bill addresses those points.
I shall close as I began, by saying that the Bill will save lives. In the memory of Francis Scorgie and Tony Cousins, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. John Austin-Walker and Mr. Jimmy Wray.

School Transport Safety
  SCHOOL TRANSPORT SAFETY
  Mr. Jimmy Hood accordingly presented a Bill to improve the safety of school transport by imposing stricter standards for school vehicles; by providing for the licensing by local authorities of such vehicles and their drivers; by requiring the supervision of children travelling in school vehicles; and by permitting controls on heavy goods vehicles on school transport routes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Jobseekers Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Ordered,
That the Jobseekers Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely New Clauses except New Clause 6, Amendments to the Bill, New Schedules, Amendments to the Schedules to the Bill, and New Clause 6.—[Mr. Bates.]

New clause 7

  EXPEDITED CLAIMS FOR HOUSING AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT
  '.—(1) This section provides for the making of regulations to enable—

  (a) information to be passed between authorities, and

  (b) priority to be given to certain persons,

  with a view to claims for housing or council tax benefit made by or in respect of persons who cease to be entitled to a jobseeker' s allowance or income support being dealt with quickly.
  (2) In the Administration Act, insert after section 128—

  EXPEDITED CLAIMS FOR HOUSING AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT

    Expedited claims for housing and council tax benefit Disclosure of information by authorities
    128A.—(1) Regulations may make provision requiring the disclosure by one authority ("the disclosing authority") to another authority ("the receiving authority"), in prescribed circumstances, of information of a prescribed description obtained by the disclosing authority in respect of persons who have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support.
    (2) The regulations may in particular provide for—

    (a) information to be disclosed—

    (i) at the request of the receiving authority;

    (ii) at the request of any person who falls within a prescribed category; or

    (iii) otherwise than in response to such a request;

    (b) the period within which information is to be disclosed; and

    (c) information to be disclosed only if it has been obtained by the disclosing authority in the exercise of any of their functions in relation to housing benefit or council tax benefit."

    (3) In section 63 of the Administration Act (adjudication of claims for housing benefit or council tax benefit), insert after subsection (2)—
    "(2A) Regulations may make provision requiring authorities to whom claims for housing benefit or council tax benefit are made by, or in respect of, persons who have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support to give priority, in prescribed circumstances, to those claims over other claims for any such benefit.".'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.].
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.42 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause deals with the mechanics of implementing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's November uprating statement that housing benefit and council tax benefit would run on for four weeks after returning to work for those unemployed or lone parents who have been on jobseeker's allowance or income support for six months or more. It is the Government's intention that that run-on should begin from the outset of the implementation of JSA becoming payable in April 1996. For the purposes of the period beginning in April 1996, it is envisaged that six months on unemployment benefit or income support previously would count.

    355
    This is designed to deal with the major concern of those who are moving off benefits and on to work as to whether they will be able to pay the rent in the initial period of their return to work. This is quite an expensive measure. It will cost £50 million a year and it is anticipated that it will benefit about 440,000 individuals a year.
    If this measure is to work, the mechanics must be in place to ensure that there is a smooth run-on. The first two subsections of new clause 7 deal with the situation that occurs when jobseekers move from one local authority where they have been receiving housing benefit to another local authority to obtain work. The purpose of the two subsections is to give a regulatory power to require information to be exchanged between local authorities.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the measure will give protection to share fishermen, who may have to wait some time before they receive their share—in other words, their wages—from the landings of a vessel? The hon. Gentleman may smile. I am talking about only a few men, but this is important.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman sees me smiling, but I mean no disrespect towards the problems of share fishermen. They have received special treatment throughout the passage of the legislation, as they have for many years. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head the precise way in which the rule applies to them, but I shall write to him on the issue.
    The first two subsections of the clause deal with the regulatory power to require information to be exchanged and the third with the regulatory power to require authorities to give priority to jobseekers. Local authorities are already under a legal obligation to determine all housing benefit and council tax benefit claims within 14 days of receipt of the necessary information. The powers in the clause will not change that, nor will they prevent local authorities from treating any particular claim as a matter of extreme urgency. They will afford a general priority for determining claims by jobseekers.
    To complete the picture, I should explain that we also plan to introduce a financial incentive and penalty scheme to encourage all local authorities to process quickly new claims from those claiming this most important run-on. Additional or reduced subsidy will be paid to local authorities according to whether they process claims effectively.
    Mr. Keith Bradley: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to delay the Report stage. This is not the place to go into the detail of the new jobseeker's allowance. We welcome the measure, which will speed up the administration of benefits for people moving in and out of work. A major bone of contention has been that delay has often led to financial difficulties—particularly, as the Under-Secretary said, with rent payments—and any measure to speed the process up is welcome.
    I am also pleased about the Under-Secretary's assurances that subsection (1)(b)—which enables
    "priority to be given to certain persons"—
    does not in any way undermine the general administration of benefit claims. One may feel on seeing words such as "priority" that other people are being de-prioritised and pushed down a waiting list. I welcome the Under-Secretary's assurances that the Government intend
    356
    to ensure that all such claims are dealt with speedily and efficiently. I am sure that local authorities throughout the country will respond to that request.
    There are good and bad practices in such administration, and we want to ensure that all authorities use the best possible good practice. This measure in no way seeks to undermine that intention. People who clearly need a speedy response from the benefit system must not get that response at the expense of other people who have an equal need for such a speedy response, and we must ensure that we do not bring hardship to particular claimants. I am pleased that the Government have introduced the new clause, the need for which they identified in Committee.
    Mr. Roger Evans: I confirm that share fishermen will be among those eligible to benefit from the proposal.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

  SICK OR DISABLED PERSONS
  '.—(1) Regulations under section 4(5) shall provide for the applicable amount, in a case where as a result of a physical or mental disability the claimant has to incur additional costs for the purpose of complying with the terms of a jobseeker's agreement or a jobseeker's direction, to include an amount in respect of those costs.
  (2) Regulations under subsections (2) and (3) of section 6 may, in particular, provide for any difficulties or discrimination faced by disabled persons in seeking or obtaining employment to be taken into account.
  (3) Regulations under section 6(2)(a) and (c) may, in particular, provide that a person who has made and is pursuing an appeal against the determination of an adjudication officer that he is not incapable of work and whose medical practitioner, or another person with a prescribed qualification, supplies evidence of his continuing incapacity for work shall be treated as available for and actively seeking employment pending the determination of his appeal.
  (4) For the purposes of sections 7 and 8, in any case where—

  (a) the claimant's availability for employment is restricted as a result of a physical or mental disability or partial incapacity, or

  (b) it was determined in accordance with the provisions of Part XIIA of the Benefits Act that he was incapable of all work for any period during the eight weeks preceding his claim,

  the employment officer, as defined in section 7(15), shall be a person designated by the Secretary of State as a disability employment adviser.
  (5) Regulations under section 16(3) may, in particular, provide for an income-based jobseeker's allowance, which would otherwise be prevented from being paid by section 15, to be payable at a prescribed rate where the claimant or his partner is sick or disabled.
  (6) In this section—

  (a) "jobseeker's direction" has the same meaning as in section 15;

  (b) "partner" has such meaning as may be prescribed; and

  (c) "sick or disabled" has such meaning as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Bradley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Bradley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  New clause 2 deals with some of the problems which thousands more disabled people who will be expected to sign on for jobseeker's allowance will face as a result of the more restrictive test for incapacity benefit. It would help the Employment Service to administer the new system.

  357
  It is important to put our concerns in context. It is estimated that 190,000 disabled people will come off invalidity benefit and that an additional 55,000 people will fail to qualify for incapacity benefit in the first year of the jobseeker's allowance. That means that an additional 245,000 who have substantial disabilities are expected to sign on as unemployed and claim JSA. Not only will many of those people face a lower level of income than they would have received under incapacity benefit, but many will receive less than they would have received under the current unemployment benefit. For example, for a 40-year-old woman there is a difference of up to £18.60 a week between the higher rate of incapacity benefit at £65.05 and unemployment benefit, currently at £46.45.
  Let us consider why many groups of people will be worse off under JSA than under unemployment benefit. The Labour party believes that there are five key reasons for that. First, contributory JSA will be paid for only six, instead of for 12, months. That is at the heart of the Bill. It is an attempt to cut contributory benefit from 12 months to six months and to move people after six months on to means-tested benefit, so extending the poverty trap and forcing people to be means-tested earlier. At the same time, the Government are increasing national insurance contributions from 9 to 10 per cent. In other words, people will pay more and get less out of the national insurance contributory system.
  The rationale for the change is that the majority of claimants have only a short spell of unemployment lasting six months or less. However, the evidence strongly suggests that that is not the case for disabled people. Research by the social and community planning research department found that half of the disabled people who were actively looking for work had been doing so for a year and that a further third had been doing so for three years. That hardly bears out the Government's view that people come off the dole within six months.
  Secondly, contributory JSA will be reduced pound for pound where people receive an occupational or private pension of more than £50 a week. Previously, that applied to pensions of more than £35 a week paid to people over the age of 55. The new rule could adversely affect some disabled people who are taken off incapacity benefit if they receive payment from a previous employer in recognition of their ill health or disability. Contributory JSA could be reduced or lost completely. A 50-year-old man with an occupational pension of £60 a week will lose £10 a week from his contributory JSA. Under unemployment benefit, the payment would not have been reduced because he was aged under 55.
  Thirdly, no increase will be payable for a non-working partner unless the partner looks after children or is aged over 60. Removing the dependence allowance for a non-working spouse or partner means that contributory JSA will amount to a personal allowance only. Another good example is that of a 34-year-old man who has an injury at work which prevents him from working, for which he receives a lump sum compensation of £20,000. He has two children and a wife who cares for the children. He would receive £127.45 per week incapacity benefit, which includes an allowance for adult and child dependants.
  358
  If that person moved to unemployment benefit, he would receive £74.50, which would include an allowance for his wife. Under the jobseeker's allowance, however, he would receive only the basic rate of £46.50—a staggering difference of £80.96 per week between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. His savings of £20,000 as compensation for his injury would preclude him from the means-tested jobseeker's allowance, leaving him with only his six months contributory jobseeker's allowance.
  Fourthly, the contributory jobseeker's allowance is limited to six months, thus bringing in means-tested benefits sooner. An earlier means test could bite especially hard for people with income or savings above the limit. The change could affect disabled women disproportionately, especially if they are leaving incapacity benefit, as they are more likely than male claimants to have a partner who is working full time, which would exclude them from the means-tested jobseeker's allowance. The savings limit of more than £8,000 could exclude disabled people with capital from compensation for personal injuries.
  Fifthly and finally, on the rationale, disabled people may incur additional costs in their job search because of their disability. In Committee, Ministers said that they would consider the extra expenses incurred by disabled jobseekers and I will return to that matter later.
  That is the context within which our new clause is framed. It is an attempt to tackle the consequences of those fundamental changes in unemployment benefit and the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is odd for the House to be debating this issue, which affects the sick and the disabled in particular, at the same time as the Government are proclaiming their conversion to new rights for disabled people in their flawed Disability Discrimination Bill, which will be coming before the House next week?
  Mr. Bradley: Throughout our deliberations on Report, we shall be looking closely at the interface between people with disabilities and unemployment and at the Government's Bill on discrimination, which clearly does not go any way towards tackling the real needs of disabled people in the workplace, especially as regards small employers. We shall consider that carefully and in detail as the day progresses.
  The purpose of the new clause is to alleviate some of the consequences of the new Bill. First, it will help with additional costs in complying with the jobseeker's agreement or direction.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: How much?
  Mr. Bradley: Since I have not uttered one word about what the proposal is intended to do, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, I shall return to that question.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a figure for additional costs and I am asking what it would be.
  Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will see that its purpose is to prescribe in regulations the extent to which the Government will help disabled people. We are flagging up the intention that that should be done through regulation and we do not

  359
  prescribe the amount in the new clause. To answer the question directly, if the new clause helps disabled people back into employment and gets them off benefits, at worst, its effects will be neutral and the measure will probably result in a saving to the social security budget.
  The purpose is to help people with the additional costs of complying with the jobseeker's agreement or direction. Disabled people may face additional costs.
  Mr. Heald: What are they?
  Mr. Bradley: The costs to a disabled person.
  Mr. Heald: Yes, what are they?
  Mr. Bradley: I shall explain. If the hon. Gentleman listens carefully when I describe the type of cost that we are dealing with, he might be able to put a figure on it himself.
  The additional cost of job seeking for disabled people, compared with able-bodied people, may include travel to interviews, speculative visits to employers or even visits to the Employment Service. For example, people with sensory impairments may need assistance in approaching employers by telephone or letter, or in looking for advertisements. They may need to be accompanied to an interview by a signer. Under the Government's access to work scheme, payments may be made for equipment, adaptation to premises or transport costs to help disabled people in work. However, like the disability working allowance, it is limited to people who are already in work, so offers of help to someone trying to find a job in the first place are not available. In Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Employment showed some sympathy with the argument that disabled people faced additional costs when searching for a job, and I look forward to a positive response from her when she winds up the debate.
  4 pm
  Secondly, the new clause provides for difficulties of discrimination faced by disabled people in seeking or obtaining employment. In the first year of the jobseeker's allowance, an estimated 190,000 people coming off incapacity benefit will have considerable difficulties in sustaining job search activities. Except for a minority regarded as incapable of work, most incapacity benefit claimants must score at least 15 points in a test of physical or mental functions, or at least 10 points in a test of mental ability alone. The arbitrary cut-off at 15, taking no other factors into account, means that a score of 14, which confirms a substantial disability, would disqualify someone from incapacity benefit.
  In addition, DSS research reports Nos. 19 and 20 into invalidity benefit conclude that the constraints arising from disability or health problems disadvantage disabled people in the labour market relative to other jobseekers. Likely to face most difficulty are those over the age of 50 with a background in manual work and no qualifications. Similarly, research by Scope shows that an able-bodied job applicant is six times more likely to receive a positive response from an employer than a disabled applicant.
  The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred earlier, fails to deal with the extent of employment discrimination as small employers are excluded from its provisions. It is therefore important that
  360
  both a person's disability and the existence of discrimination be taken into account by the Employment Service when drawing up a jobseeker's agreement, considering what steps should be taken when a disabled person is actively seeking work and in imposing a jobseeker's direction.
  Thirdly, where someone appeals against a decision that he or she is capable of work and where evidence of continuing incapacity is provided, the new clause provides that the person should be treated automatically as available for, and actively seeking, work. Currently, people who appeal against a decision that they are capable for work can, pending their appeal, either sign on or claim income support without signing on. Pending an appeal hearing, income support rules allow someone to claim without being required to be available for work where the person's GP continues to supply evidence of incapacity for work.
  In Committee on 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security announced that, as from April 1995, all new incapacity benefit claimants who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work will, if they are not signing on, be subject to a 20 per cent. reduction in their basic rate of income support. That new measure is a harsh, worrying and unnecessary appeal penalty. As well as the prospect of living on an income that will be severely reduced from £46.50 to £37.20 a week for a single person, people in that position are likely to be left with a gap in their national insurance credits unless they win their appeal. Furthermore, that new rule will push more people towards the Employment Service to sign on and have a further impact on the administration of the jobseeker's allowance.
  Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend may remember that in Committee the Minister said that those who decided to sign on and therefore said that they were available for work would not be prejudiced in their appeal against the original decision that they were fit to work. Has he heard anything since to convince him that that rather weak assurance is worth while?
  Mr. Bradley: The silence from the Government on that is deafening. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us further assurances because disability organisations have been horrified at the new measure. I am sure that they have expressed their protests already to the Department of Social Security, locally and nationally. The benefit penalty is particularly harsh and I am sure that the Minister will be urged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to reconsider it.
  Subsection (4) would ensure that where a person's
  "availability for employment is restricted as a result of a physical or mental disability"
  or that person was incapable of work in the previous eight weeks before his claim, he should be seen by a disability employment adviser. The White Paper on the jobseeker's allowance and the Department of Employment's press release, dated 14 February 1995, stated:
  "All jobseekers whose physical and mental condition limits their availability will be able to restrict the type or hours of work for which they are available in line with their condition."
  However, the current law goes wider than that. The disabled person may need to restrict not just the type or the hours of work, because evidence suggests that a range of factors may be important in restricting the kind of work that someone could reasonably be expected to do.

  361
  Disabled people signing on may need to place considerable restrictions on their availability for particular types of jobs and the method and distance of the journey to work.
  According to the 14 February press release, an additional £71 million will be made available in the next three years as a number of people are expected to come off incapacity benefit and sign on. It is unclear how well those resources will be used. I hope that the Minister will be able to give further details about that when she replies.
  Disabled people will need qualified advice and assistance to help with their job search. The new clause would ensure that, from the outset, the person entering into a jobseeker's agreement with the disabled person was someone from the Department of Employment's advisory service. That person would have specialist knowledge of disabilities. Unless more specialist resources are made available, assistance for increased numbers of disabled jobseekers could be considerably reduced, because we are already aware of a waiting list of disabled people seeking assistance from the Employment Service.
  Finally, the new clause deals with hardship payments to disabled people. The Bill includes new powers to increase the use of sanctions against people who "break the benefit rules". In that context, it is important that any sanctions are applied fairly and reasonably to disabled people, so that those sanctions do not disadvantage them in any further way. At present, if someone is disqualified from unemployment benefit he receives a reduced amount of income support—up to 40 per cent. less than the designated amount. Under the jobseeker's allowance, there is no automatic payment, even of a reduced amount. Paragraph 4.39 of the White Paper on the jobseeker's allowance states:
  "Although payments will not normally be available during the first two weeks of a benefit sanction, exceptions will be made for disabled people and carers."
  The Bill does not suggest how such people could be identified.
  In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would use
  "definitions used in the regulations which currently apply to those who fail the actively-seeking-work test in income support…all claimants undergoing a sanction, even those in the vulnerable groups, must demonstrate hardship before they receive a payment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 February 1995; c. 530.]
  There is no guarantee of payment, even for vulnerable groups, as only 48 per cent. of those applying for hardship payments under those rules were awarded payments.
  The new clause allows for provision to be made for sick and disabled people in that context. Given the additional costs that confront disabled people, any reduction in benefit is likely to have a massive impact. It could be argued that benefit reduction should be far less than 40 per cent., or that the benefit rate should be paid in full if the claimant or the partner has a disability.
  In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the opinions expressed by Sir Peter Large of the Association of Disabled Professionals, who said:
  "Rather than seek some open-ended commitment to cover any number of undefined extra costs that a disabled person might incur in seeking work"—
  362
  I refer here to the intervention of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald)—the new clause is
  "Government-friendly in that it allows specific additional expenses to be closely prescribed in detail in regulations."
  I hope that, in that spirit, the Government will consider the new clause and realise that it is intended to help disabled people return to work and so reduce their dependence on benefits. I hope that, as the measures could be prescribed by the Government in regulation, they will look on it with favour.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that, as the legislation is framed and the regulations under it are considered, sensitive consideration is needed of the position and needs of the long-term sick and of disabled people. We need to think very carefully about the appropriate interplay between the incapacity benefit system and the jobseeker's allowance.
  A great many people will be affected by the changes, and a great many vulnerable people, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) told us. It is anticipated that about 220,000 people who are now in receipt of invalidity benefit may fail to qualify for incapacity benefit and about 55,000 new claimants who would have qualified for invalidity benefit will not qualify for incapacity benefit. Perhaps 190,000 people will in due course come off invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit to go on to jobseeker's allowance. We are talking of large numbers of people.
  The sick and the disabled have a very real apprehension—it is one that I share—that significant numbers of them will not be sick enough to qualify for incapacity benefit but will not be fit enough to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. They will not be able to satisfy the rigorous requirements for availability and actively seeking work.
  The test that is being instituted to enable people to qualify for incapacity benefit has an absolutist character, whereas the realities of the labour market are highly complex. It seems to me that that disjunction of approaches will inevitably throw up difficulties. We cannot realistically isolate, in some objective sense, individuals' capacity to work. Their capacity for work in truth depends on the circumstances in which they find themselves; on the interaction of their life history and their unique configuration of abilities with the circumstances around them and the conditions in the labour market. I am sure that my right hon. Friends will want to develop the system to provide real and effective bridges between those two regimes.
  I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the suggestion made by the Disablement Income Group, which appears constructive and practical, that the disability employment advisers should be involved in reconsidering cases in which people have narrowly failed to qualify for incapacity benefit as a result of taking the medical test. It would be good if those marginal cases could be reviewed and referred back to the Benefits Agency medical service for another look. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think about that.
  I also hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish—as they suggested they would during our debates last year on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill—to look systematically at the linking rules. There are

  363
  generous linking rules for the disability working allowance. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to consider the matter carefully and with open minds.
  4.15 pm
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting comparison with the disability working allowance, but surely he will admit that few people have been able to claim that allowance simply because it is available only when they have already overcome the major hurdle of obtaining work. Does he have any views on what problems might be caused in the administration of the benefits by the sheer numbers who will be in the system once incapacity benefit is introduced and both processes begin to bite?
  Mr. Howarth: There are, perhaps, two points. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been somewhat disappointed by the take-up of the disability working allowance and have taken steps to liberalise the rules for DWA to encourage, and make it possible for, more people to benefit from it. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that, given the numbers of people who will be in the hinterland between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance, a great many demands will be placed on administration. That is an extremely important consideration.
  Last year the Government undertook to look systematically and carefully at linking rules and the progression from one benefit to another of disabled people. I hope that the Government will apply that approach when considering the relationship between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. We shall need to have flexibility and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is not a gulf between the two benefits into which vulnerable people can fall and find themselves altogether without benefit.
  I am unclear whether the rules that allow sick or disabled people to restrict their availability for work—taking reasonable account of where the job may be located or the conditions of work in a particular employment—are to be carried through to the jobseeker's allowance. Hon. Members must forgive me if the matter has already been dealt with in Committee, but if it has not been clarified, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment could cast some light on it.
  It is tremendously important that the jobseeker's agreement takes account of the needs of an individual disabled person. The agreement must, of course, take account of the individual needs of any claimant, but that is particularly important for disabled people. I hope that we may have some reassurance on that point. I have a more radical suggestion for my hon. Friend the Minister. I am encouraged to see her turning round in her place and smiling at me. I smile on her and wonder whether, in her present benign mood, with the milk of human kindness coursing through her, she feels able to agree to allow the long-term sick and disabled to receive the contributory jobseeker's allowance for 12 months instead of six.
  It is important to recognise that, as we are all too well aware, there are fewer jobs available for the disabled, regardless of discrimination. In the nature of things, it is harder for many disabled people to find work. However arduously and determinedly they look for work, typically,
  364
  it takes them longer to find work. The hon. Member for Withington cited research carried out by Patricia Prescott-Clarke who found that half of those disabled people who were actively seeking work had been looking for more than one year and that one third had been seeking work for more than three years. Could the Minister find some margin in the public finances which would allow them to receive contributory benefit for 12 months instead of six? It would make an enormous difference to them and to their families.
  I would also like a more lenient sanctions regime to apply to the disabled—just as I would like it to apply to many others. Surely the disabled should be able to refuse work or training that is not suited to their needs.
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has raised an important point, based on its extensive practical experience in the field, concerning problems that arise with medical evidence. Fundholding general practitioners and consultants are increasingly asked to provide certificates of one sort or another, which we recognise can create practical problems for them. As a result of those increasing pressures, it appears that more of them have begun to charge for the provision of evidence. A report from one citizens advice bureau states:
  "In the last six tribunals I have undertaken for patients of our local fundholding GP a charge of £15 per letter has been levied."
  In another case, a GP was requested to provide evidence to support a disability living allowance review. He replied with a 16-line letter giving a brief history of the client's condition and an attached note saying that the fee for the enclosed report was £50. Another rather brief report stated:
  "This patient is suffering from backache."
  It was accompanied by a bill for £22.
  As I understand it, when the Employment Service seeks medical evidence it will meet the cost involved. However, when an individual claimant wishes to support a claim for restricting his or her availability for work, it is uncertain whether that person would have to pay the cost of producing the evidence in order to satisfy the Employment Service. I hope that the Government will undertake to pay such fees when the Employment Service insists on the provision of evidence.
  There is an alternative approach which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Employment, but is a matter for another Government Department. The terms and conditions of general practitioners could be altered to make provision of that service obligatory for GPs in discharging their ordinary duties. It is an urgent practical point which must be addressed.
  The hon. Member for Withington referred to the difficulties that disabled people face in appealing against a decision to disallow disability benefit. They can either accept income support with a 20 per cent. cut or they can sign on to claim jobseeker's allowance. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point that those measures should be unnecessary. If convincing evidence must be produced at an appeal, that should operate fairly effectively to discourage frivolous appeals. I am concerned that a single person would see his or her income reduced from £46.70 to £37.20 per week.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the prejudice of sick and disabled people's national insurance credits. They face either those penalties or the rigours of actively

  365
  seeking work when they may be in genuine difficulty and when their appeal may be upheld and they may be accepted as being unfit for work.
  In conclusion, let me revert to a point that I touched on earlier. We need to see the system and the needs of claimants as a continuum. I am worried that we shall end up with an all or nothing position in which people are judged absolutely as either sick or fit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be willing to reconsider another suggestion that the Disablement Income Group has consistently advanced and which has great merit—the case for a partial incapacity benefit. That would help to ensure that we have the necessary spectrum of provision.
  At present, there is a real danger that people may fall into a gulf in which there is no protection. Some disabled people may be taken out of the benefits system altogether either because they fall into the gulf between incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance or, because of earlier means testing under the jobseeker's allowance, for reasons that the House well understands, because they end up not receiving jobseeker's allowance.
  Ms Liz Lynne: I also fear that disabled people will suffer under the new jobseeker's allowance. Other hon. Members have spoken about incapacity benefit, but that will be up and running when the jobseeker's allowance comes in. According to the Government's own figures, some 220,000 people will be debarred from invalidity and incapacity benefit and told that they are fit for work.
  I am afraid also—and I should like some clarification from the Minister—that people will not be able to get the jobseeker's allowance because they are not available for work, so they will fall between the two benefits of jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit. That is already happening with invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit. The citizens advice bureaux in particular have drawn attention to many cases in which people are debarred from getting invalidity benefit and cannot get any other benefit because they are not capable of work.
  What does the Minister envisage that the Employment Service will do about the influx of people? Other hon. Members have raised that issue. I do not know whether the Employment Service will be able to cope with the 220,000 people in the Government's estimated figures. How will it cope with the fluctuating physical conditions or mild mental health problems of some of the people who will be applying for benefit?
  At the moment, disability employment advisers deal mainly with people with severe disabilities and they are not used to dealing with people with mild mental health problems. A great deal more money will be required to train those advisers and many more advisers will be needed.
  The Minister stated that £71 million will be made available for training staff dealing with the jobseeker's allowance. I should like more clarification on whether that money will be only for disability employment advisers or whether it will also include those who will be involved in the jobseeker's allowance. We need to know whether they will also receive specific training. Is the £71 million just for disabled people, or does it go further? We have not had much guidance from the Government on how that £71
  366
  million will be split up. I greatly fear that they will make do with the present number of disability employment advisers in order to save money.
  We all know that people are falling through the net at present and it would be an absolute disaster for the jobseeker's allowance if it got worse.
  We have heard already that anyone who decides to appeal against a decision to withdraw or refuse incapacity benefit is faced with an impossible dilemma. They either get income support at a reduced rate of 20 per cent. or they sign on. We need definite clarification from the Minister as to whether signing on at the employment exchange will mean that they are debarred from getting benefit or that it will hinder their appeal. In Committee, the Minister justified the penalty clause on the ground that it would reduce the number of appeals, but everyone should have the right to appeal against being debarred from a benefit. The Minister did not make it clear whether signing on would count. There have been many contradictory statements, so clarification is needed.
  4.30 pm
  Disabled people are disadvantaged in society. Next week we will debate the Disability Discrimination Bill—but I do not believe that it will help a great deal. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the need to obtain medical evidence to support a claim of being unable to perform certain jobs because of disability. Will the Government meet the cost of obtaining that evidence? Will the Employment Service make an allowance? Otherwise, there will be a disincentive to appeal. People should be made to feel that they can appeal against a decision and not be denied that course because of the cost.
  The cost must also be met where a disabled person finds it more difficult to meet the expense of travelling to and from a new job, as well as all the other costs that he or she might incur in meeting a new job commitment. I agree with new clause 2 and hope that the Government will accept it.
  Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) asked a number of pertinent questions, but she could have elicited answers to many of them if she or any other Liberal Democrat had taken the trouble to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill.
  Ms Lynne: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that I served on the Committee considering the Disability Discrimination Bill, so was unable to be on two Committees at the same time. As I am my party's social security and disability spokesperson, I should have served on the Committee considering the Jobseekers Bill, but I served on the other.
  Mr. Hill: To conclude this slight spat, both the Government and my party were able to place social security and employment spokespersons on the Committee considering this Bill, and I imagine that the Liberal Democrats have an employment spokesperson.
  Figures released by the unemployment unit today show that the number of jobless people losing benefit has doubled in the past 12 months, which fully justifies fears repeatedly expressed by the Opposition that the jobseeker's allowance legislation is paving the way to a harsher and more repressive regime in the Employment Service. There is deep anxiety on these Benches that new

  367
  toughness will work to the special disadvantage of the most vulnerable claimants—the sick and disabled, who will be presenting themselves in vastly increased numbers at jobcentres.
  Incapacity benefit will replace invalidity benefit on 13 April, when it is estimated that more than 200,000 ex-claimants will fail the new test of incapacity and will be treated as capable of working. There is widespread evidence that a clampdown is already operating in the run-up to incapacity benefit. Streatham citizens advice bureau has seen significant growth in recent months in the number of cases where DSS medical boards are finding people fit for work and discontinuing their invalidity benefit. Trades Union Congress unemployment centres are reporting a tenfold growth in appeals against loss of invalidity benefit over the past 12 months.
  One of the purposes of the new clause is to make some provision for the extra costs that are faced by disabled people, in satisfying the availability and actively seeking work requirements of the proposed legislation. I want to say a word in support of that proposal, but before I do, I ask for a specific assurance from the Government with regard to the costs of supporting medical evidence. I mentioned the experience of Streatham citizens advice bureau, of the recent growth in judgments against invalidity benefit claimants by DSS medical boards. Apparently, where claimants wish to appeal against such judgments, some doctors are now charging for the medical reports necessary for appeal, regardless of the patients' ability to pay. I find that a distressing and unfair development. It does not auger well for the new arrangements under the jobseeker's agreement where a person is seeking to restrict his or her availability for work on health grounds and needs to produce supporting medical evidence.
  In Committee, the Minister appeared to offer an undertaking that no charge would be made to a claimant where the Employment Service requested such evidence. That form of words appeared at the same time, however, to exclude provision for such evidence to be free when it is the claimant who requests it. I seek an assurance that where either the Department or the claimant requests evidence with regard to limits on work, on health grounds, it will be free at the point of supply.
  I notice that the Minister is shaking her head. I hope that, by the conclusion of my observations on this matter or at the end of the debate, a more generous spirit will have surged through her and that that assurance will be offered.
  In more general terms, it is obvious that the sick and disabled usually face greater living costs than other people as a result of their illnesses and disabilities. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security offered to consider the possibility of making provision for specific travel, interview or search costs incurred by disabled people in search of work. I hope that the Minister will be able to undertake to include such provision on the face of the Bill later.
  The new clause also removes the new appeal penalty that was introduced in Committee, which is explicitly designed to act as a disincentive to appeals against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit. Rather than penalising those who exercise the right of appeal, it seems more reasonable to increase the resources available for dealing with appeals. The truth is that although many will choose to sign on while appealing, not least to preserve their national insurance record, those who feel least able to
  368
  work will be penalised the most. Not only will the withdrawal of incapacity benefit in itself reduce their income but they now face a further loss of income of at least £9 a week. I commend the proposal in the new clause that will at least ensure that disabled people are treated as available for work for the duration of their appeal.
  It is a grave cause for concern in my view to force the sick and disabled out of benefit as a result of illness and on to lower benefits and the highly notional job market. When I visited my local CAB recently, I was told of the pressures experienced by an arthritis sufferer. She had been forced out of her old job by her disability and was told by the DSS to apply for a job as a cleaner. Another client, more than 60 years of age, who had been out of work for years, also because of arthritis, faced the loss of invalidity benefit. Where is the fairness or common sense in that?
  Even more worrying is the situation of those suffering from non-physical disabilities under the new arrangements. Let me cite two further cases dealt with by the Streatham CAB in recent months that illustrate the problems that are likely to be faced by those suffering from mental illness. In one case—that of a controlled schizophrenic—the DSS suggested that that person could be employed, again, as a cleaner. It is interesting that in this new world of work that is being opened up and the wonderful, flexible labour market that is being created by the Government, the characteristic job that seems to be on offer to those about to move into the labour market is that of cleaner.
  Another case, also passed to me by the Streatham CAB, concerned a severely alcoholic man, part of whose brain had been affected by alcoholism. He too faced the threat of losing his invalidity benefit. The CAB helped both those people to win on appeal, but that is no basis for complacency. People with mental illness are the least able to help themselves, and could be said to suffer from one of the least easily provable illnesses. They are in great danger of being disadvantaged by the new tough regime that the Bill presages.
  Ms Eagle: Is not another factor the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and the disadvantages that someone considering an appeal may suffer in the interim?
  Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is entirely right. My local CAB has given distressing examples of the enormous difficulties experienced by its clients in obtaining benefits—or any form of income—during that period.
  People suffering from mental illness are most likely to be pressurised into job search activity that may be unsuitable or even detrimental to their health. There is a danger that a number of long-term sick and disabled people will find themselves squeezed out of the benefit system altogether. New clause 2 is designed to offer some safeguards against the risk posed by this worrying, repressive and mean-spirited legislation.
  Dr. Godman: I support new clause 2. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some ambiguities relating to transfer from invalidity to incapacity benefit and thence—in some cases—to the jobseeker's allowance.
  The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that some 200,000 people were in receipt of invalidity benefit. If I have misquoted either of them, I shall of course give way.
  Ms Lynne: According to the Government's own estimate, 220,000 people will be ineligible for invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that clarification. I wonder whether the statistics include the approximately 80,000 women aged between 60 and 65 whose invalidity benefit has been suspended by the Department until such time as the European Court of Justice offers an opinion in the test case of Mrs. Graham.
  Mrs. Graham appealed against the suspension of her invalidity benefit. A commissioner by the name of Skinner—I am sure that he is no relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—found in her favour, but the Department challenged his finding and went to the English Court of Appeal, whose judges sent the commissioner's decision to the European Court of Justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position; I am sure that she is wonderfully clear about the issue of the 80,000 women who are currently in a curious state of limbo.
  In a letter sent to me last week, the Secretary of State assured me, and I believe him, that if the opinion of the European Court of Justice—for that is what it offers: opinions—is accepted by the English Court of Appeal, he will ensure that women caught in this appalling trap will receive invalidity benefit backdated to, I believe, 1 April 1992. I welcome that commitment from the Secretary of State. I know that the Minister cannot speculate on the likely outcome of a case that is to begin in Luxembourg on 6 April, I think, with the oral evidence of Mrs. Graham's QC, a gentleman by the name of Drabble. The Minister will readily acknowledge that the Government have a fairly honourable record in honouring European Court of Justice decisions that go against the legislation, policies and procedures of the United Kingdom.
  Of those 80,000 women, some 3,000 or more live in Northern Ireland, several thousand live in Scotland and about 400 live in my constituency. What will happen to such women if they are paid invalidity benefit as a result of the intervention of the European Court of Justice? Presumably, they will be assessed for incapacity benefit, even though some of them are aged between 60 and 65—some of them, of course, will be aged over 65. If those who are aged under 65 years move to incapacity benefit, will some of them then be assessed for the jobseeker's allowance? It would help if that could be clarified.
  4.45 pm
  A small number of those women have visited me at my surgery. I readily acknowledge that I organised a take-up campaign in Scotland on behalf of such women. I hope to organise such a campaign in Northern Ireland because those women are being miserably treated by the Government.
  Incidentally, Commissioner Skinner decided that the Government were in contravention of a European Community directive. I cannot remember its classification, but it was obviously an equality directive. It will help if persons who will be directly affected by the legislation know what the position will be if the case goes Mrs. Graham's way, as, naturally, I sincerely hope that it will, or if the Government's case is accepted by the European Court of Justice.
  370
  It is unfair that those women have been treated in this way. I readily acknowledge that, in cases of hardship, such women can have the benefit restored, as has happened to some of my women constituents. Some 800 women throughout England, Scotland and Wales have had the benefit restored on the ground of hardship. A small number of women in Northern Ireland have also had their benefit restored on that ground, which they had to prove. It would be extremely helpful if such women were informed, especially given the imminence of the case. As the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in another letter, no opinion will be offered by the court until July, but those women are coming to hon. Members' surgeries—they are certainly coming to mine—and asking what their likely position will be if the court offers an opinion in favour of Mrs. Graham or, on the bleak side, if it offers an opinion that supports the Government.
  This matter is important because we are talking about scores of thousands of women. It would be remiss of hon. Members to ignore their sparse circumstances in a debate on the new clause, which seeks, however directly or indirectly, to protect people who have suffered long bouts of sickness. Also, some of my constituents and many other women in Scotland, who are so affected and who have been in touch with me, have contributed to such benefits. They have a right to demand from the Government some sort of indication of where they will stand in the near future vis-a-vis the test case which will shortly begin its proceedings at the European Court of Justice.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have had an interesting debate and I think that there is a genuine shared concern on both sides of the House that we should ensure that when we introduce the jobseeker's allowance, people with disabilities, having been refused incapacity benefit—as it will then be—will not fall between two stools. The main concern that has informed contributions to the debate—with the exception of the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) to which I shall return later—has been that people should not be caught and fall down some black hole. That was the main thrust of the speech made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).
  I can reassure the House, as I reassured the Committee on several occasions, that we are concerned to ensure that people do not fall between two stools. It is important to understand—I say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—that when people sign on for JSA, rather than for income support, they will be able to place restrictions on their availability, on the type of work that they are able to do and even on their job search activities. They will be able to include such restrictions as arise as a result of their condition. I shall go into a little more detail about how we will make those judgments later.
  Ms Eagle: When the Minister does go into detail, will she explain how the jobseeker's agreement will tie into that and what would happen if there were no agreement? Will she also refer particularly to whether specialist advisers will be on hand to interpret the practical effects of some conditions which ordinary Employment Service staff may not always appreciate?
  Miss Widdecombe: Those are all important questions and I can answer most of them in a positive way which I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome.
  In Committee, I made available copies of the draft jobseeker's agreement. I demonstrated that there are questions on that agreement which ask, for example, about the hours that somebody is willing to work. If somebody's condition is such that they are able to do some work—one would presume that to be the case since they have been turned down for incapacity benefit—but are not able to work a full working week, which we define as 40 hours for the purposes of JSA, they would be able to agree with the Employment Service adviser, not the disability employment adviser, some restrictions on the hours. There is then a catch-all section which says:
  "Other agreed restrictions on …availability".
  That is a section to which people with disabilities might wish to add extra points that are not necessarily to do with hours or the type of work. It is important to understand that the jobseeker's agreement is meant to be tailored.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that any applicant should be able to have his circumstances taken into account in all reasonable conditions. That is a view to which we would subscribe. I spent some time during the Committee—as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will remember—trying to reassure hon. Members on that point. I shall deal with the hon. Lady's other points when I come to discuss in greater detail how the matters will be managed, and she can intervene again at that point if she is not satisfied.
  I shall now address some of the specifics which came up in the debate in relation to the clause and its various subsections. First, we dealt with the question of the extra costs involved in a job search, and the particular difficulties that a person with disabilities might face. Such a person would be able to put restrictions into his jobseeker's agreement, and specialist help designed for each individual will also be available.
  Help with travel to interviews will be available, and that will include the costs of an escort to or from an interview. Premiums are also payable to people with disabilities which do not depend on their availability for work, such as disability living allowance, severe disability allowance and mobility allowance. All of those will still be available, and should address the specific problems which people with disabilities have.
  The jobseeker's agreement focuses on the steps to be taken, but those steps will have been agreed. There is no single prescription of the steps that should be taken. I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on subsection (2) when he talked about discrimination. Clearly there is discrimination against people with disabilities, and the Disability Discrimination Bill was introduced to address that. That Bill is where we shall base our help for people who face discrimination.
  Mr. Bradley: Why does the Disability Discrimination Bill not include small employers, who may be very willing to take on disabled people?
  Miss Widdecombe: If they are very willing to take on disabled people, there is no problem at all. What we have said in the Disability Discrimination Bill is very straightforward. We do not wish to place undue burdens on small businesses. If small businesses find that it is not
  372
  possible within reason to make adjustments, they must still prove that that is the case if they are caught within the terms of the Bill. They also have to master a fairly complex piece of legislation, and we must bear it in mind that they do not have discrete personnel departments as larger concerns do.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that small firms have been exempted in other countries where such a measure has been brought in. We encourage small firms to take on people with disabilities. Access to work covers large, medium and small firms, and is available to each individual. We have gone a long way towards addressing the particular concerns of the hon. Gentleman.
  Ms Lynne: The Minister said that small firms were exempted in other countries. In the United States, firms of 15 employees and under are exempted. Why is the figure 20 and under in this country?
  Miss Widdecombe: There is no need for us specifically to follow the United States. We have made a judgment on what we think is reasonable in terms of our legislation and the burdens we are proposing to put on business. The hon. Lady will be well aware that, under the Disability Discrimination Bill, regulations will be able to provide for that threshold to be altered if necessary. We have built in flexibility, and I feel that her point on that issue is not fair.
  While on the issue of subsections (1) and (2), this is probably a convenient place to explain the figure of £71 million which has been raised by hon. Members this afternoon. Unemployed and disabled people have priority for places on all main employment and training programmes for which they are both suitable and eligible.
  The Employment Service will spend an additional £71 million in the first three years of incapacity benefit on all those who come on to unemployment from incapacity benefit. That £71 million will cover, among other things, in-depth interviews, specialised help from placing assessment and counselling teams—the PACTs to which I referred earlier—and extra provision for job plan, job club and the job interview guarantee. Therefore, people affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit will have early access to the most appropriate provision. The access to work scheme—
  Ms Lynne: The Minister gave a breakdown of the £71 million, but did not specify how much more money would be put into the system of disability employment advisers.
  5 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: There has already been substantial training as a result of the new incapacity benefit. There will be additional training as a result of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, which will include such things as reasonable restrictions. I shall deal specifically with disability employment advisers when I talk about the particular route that I said that I wanted to follow in more detail.
  The access to work scheme, which extended and replaced existing programmes, will also be of use to people who have the difficulties which hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly acknowledge.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I understood that the access to work scheme was up for review shortly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is here to stay?
  Miss Widdecombe: If a scheme is up for review, I shall not prejudice that review any more than I am willing to speculate on the outcome of a court case. However, access to work is recognised as a successful scheme. I am sure that that success will be taken into account when the review is conducted.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: That means no.
  Miss Widdecombe: I did not say no. If I had said no, it was not here to stay, I would have been speculating on its demise. I am not doing that. I am saying that when anything is the subject of a review, it ill becomes Ministers to speculate on the likely outcome in the House.
  Much that I have already said covers subsection (3) of the new clause. Of course, the individual is not forced on to income support with a 20 per cent. deduction. He has the choice of going on to full JSA, placing restrictions on the hours and type of work and anything else that may be immediately relevant to his disability.
  Ms Eagle: This is an important point. Will the Minister confirm that if an individual who wishes to appeal against being disallowed incapacity benefit signs on to JSA, with all the restrictions, no tribunal will regard that as in any way prejudicial to the appeal?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes. I can confirm that absolutely unequivocally. Signing on for work will not prejudice an appeal against a refusal to allow incapacity benefit. I can furthermore say that the courts have made that clear. The chief adjudication officer has also made that clear. Therefore, I do not think that that need be a worry. I know that it exercised several hon. Members who spoke in the debate. I intended to deal with it at a subsequent stage.
  Subsection (4) of the new clause would ensure that a person with disabilities receives the advice of a disability employment adviser rather than just an Employment Service officer. We shall ensure that the individual will be able to make a free choice. He may not want to go to a disability employment adviser. There are people who do not. They want to be treated in the main stream. They want to stay in the main stream. One needs to respect that choice, but there will be a choice. Anyone who wants the services of a disability employment adviser and who is eligible through having some physical or mental restriction will be able to receive that advice. I hope that the hon. Member for Withington will accept that assurance.
  I can also reassure the hon. Gentleman on subsection (5). Claimants who are, or have partners who are, sick or disabled will automatically be classified as vulnerable and, therefore, will receive hardship payments throughout the sanction. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I wish to confirm, they will have to establish hardship. As they are in a vulnerable group, it will be assumed that where there is financial hardship, they qualify.
  I shall deal now with some of the specific points that were made in the debate. The main thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow was about women between the ages of 60 and 65 awaiting the outcome of the Graham decision. If the appeal goes in their favour, they will come under the rule which says that people aged 58 or over in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993 will be exempt from the all-work test. Accordingly, if they win, they will not move off benefit through the all-work test. They will have their
  374
  position restored and they will then be covered by the protection extended to those over the age of 58. My understanding is that if they lose, they will be in exactly the same position as anyone else over 60 in terms of retirement pension or income support where the pension is not appropriate, or whatever the case may be. I hope that that clears the matter up.
  The hon. Member for Withington was probably slightly confused. I think that I heard him say that access to work and general help was for those in work. I reassure him that the Employment Service can fund the costs of travel to interview, the cost of escorts to and from interview, which are important for people with disabilities, the cost of providing communications for the deaf at interview and other similar measures. For example, when talking about people facing extra costs in looking for work, one can call to mind the blind and whether they can type a CV. The PACTs and the Employment Service can provide such a service.
  I said that I would go into the detail of the position of those who cross from one benefit to another. The full detailed arrangements will be set out in regulations, but I can give the following assurances. When a claim is made, Employment Service front-line staff will take the claimant's own evidence about the extent of his condition and the impact that it has on his availability or whatever he seeks to restrict. In many cases, that will be agreed and there will not be any further problem.
  Where a claimant has left incapacity benefit and makes a claim for JSA, the Employment Service will have a range of medical evidence available to assess whether the restrictions are reasonable, given the claimant's particular condition. That will include, always assuming that the claimant has given written consent, the incapacity benefit disallowance notice, which will set out the case, evidence provided by the Benefits Agency medical services and specialist expertise within the Employment Service.
  Where a claimant has not made a previous claim for incapacity benefit, our front-line staff will have full access, where they need it, to the range of services offered by the disability employment advisers and the PACTs, who have specialist knowledge and expertise on the impact of disabilities on occupations and the effect on a person's prospects in the local labour market. If they have doubts about the reasonableness of the claimant's proposed restrictions, the case will go to an independent adjudication officer. He or she will, in turn, have access to the full range of evidence provided by the all-work test and incapacity benefit, if appropriate, or the expertise of the disability employment advisers and the PACTs. The adjudication officer may also require the claimant to provide further evidence, which could include medical evidence.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that we expect that to be necessary only in a small proportion of cases. We understand that many doctors will be prepared to provide that sort of evidence free of charge and we do not, therefore, see the need for legislation to provide for any other system.
  Ms Lynne: The hon. Lady says that doctors will be available to provide medical evidence free of charge in many cases, but what if no doctor is prepared to do so? She said that she does not want to introduce legislation, but if that were the case it would be essential.
  Miss Widdecombe: We expect that the provision will affect only a small number of cases, and within those we would expect many doctors to provide the evidence free of charge. That is not merely a vague expectation, as it is based on the knowledge available to us. If the hon. Lady is challenging me to agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who is also about to intervene, we do not accept that there is a case for an open-ended commitment from the Department of Employment to fund medical advice in that way. We do not see the need to fund it in that way. First, there is no good reason why we should fund some doctors and not others, and we would have to have an open-ended commitment whereby we would fund all such evidence. Secondly, we must remember that the procedure occurs only in cases of doubt and after all the other evidence that I mentioned has been exhausted. We are not talking about imposing charges at an early stage in the process.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I am a little worried that my hon. Friend may be at risk of underestimating the incidence of such charges. We should certainly acknowledge that, where they occur, they bear heavily on people on low incomes and in a precarious situation. While I recognise her difficulty about making a commitment to funding, will she say here and now at the Dispatch Box that she believes that it is right in principle that doctors should not charge to provide claimants with that evidence? Will she also undertake to confer with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to find out whether further steps can be taken to encourage doctors to conform to the standards that I am sure that she and I would both want them to adhere to?
  Miss Widdecombe: While there is no reason to doubt the good faith of the claimant concerned, I hope—I can put it no higher, as I cannot lay down ethics for the medical profession—that the doctor would provide such a service free of charge. I cannot undertake to apply pressure on the Department of Health as my hon. Friend suggests, but I undertake to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in whose province that falls, to talk to the Department of Health.
  I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Withington sufficient reassurances to enable him to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the detail in which the Minister responded to the debate on new clause 2 and for the contributions from both sides of the House. It was always a great sadness to Opposition Members that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was not selected to serve on the Standing Committee to help us in our deliberations.
  We accept the Minister's assurances on certain areas, but the proof will come out in the detail in 1996, after the Bill becomes an Act, when we can judge the interrelationship of its provisions with incapacity benefit in practice. We reserve our judgment on whether the seamless service between the two benefits will be as effective as the Government suggest.
  We are concerned that £71 million will not be sufficient to meet the extra demands that will be placed on the Employment Service. On the pertinent question of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon about the access to work fund, which is under review, I can only say that the
  376
  independent living fund was a huge success and we all know what happened to that, so we will be watching with great interest.
  We will look at the operations of the Act in practice and I am sure that these matters may be considered in further detail in another place. With that comment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 4

  AVAILABILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT: THE 21 HOUR RULE
  '.—(1) A person who—

  (a) is attending a course of education, training or instruction;

  (b) would, if he were not attending that course, be available for employment;

  (c) is prepared to terminate the course if a suitable job becomes available to him; and,

  (d) was for a prescribed period or periods before he first attended the course in receipt of a prescribed benefit or on a prescribed course of training or instruction,

  shall be treated as available for employment for the purposes of this Act.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), "course" means—

  (a) a course of a prescribed description financed by the European Social Fund; or,

  (b) a course in the pursuit of which time spent receiving instruction or tuition, undertaking supervised study, examination or practical work or taking part in any exercise, experiment or project for which provision is made in the curriculum of the course, excluding time occupied by meal breaks or spent on unsupervised study, does not exceed 21 hours a week.'.—[Mr. McCartney.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. McCartney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I want to set the new clause in context as it concerns one of the issues over which there was great contention in Committee. There was contention for a number of reasons. One was the way in which the Government introduced the measure in Committee and the other was the fact that we believed it to be a perverse and mean-spirited approach to reduce the 21 guided learning hours to 16.
  Yesterday, more than 1,000 people representing all aspects of education came to the House to voice their disapproval of and concern about the Government's continuing disinvestment from education. This new clause should be seen in the context of the Government's overall drive to disinvest from education, whether at primary, secondary or tertiary level or, as in this case, from people who are unemployed and require training and further education to get back into the work force.
  For those reasons, we opposed the Government's statement in mid-February and submitted a new clause in Committee to reverse the decision back to 21 hours. This afternoon, we are continuing the fight with a further new clause, which contains an additional provision to that tabled in Committee, as the Government did not give any clear indication of the way in which they intended to deal with education and training schemes run under the European social fund.

  377
  Up to 80,000 jobless people are using their time on the dole to study. They will be forced to consider giving up their studies to take low-paid, part-time and casual work with no prospects for future career development or educational training.
  The present rules allow for 21 hours of guided study or learning, but under JSA rules, the Government will cut that to 16, with five hours or more for private study. In general, the Government are presenting that measure as a continuation of the current scheme, which it is not. As we already know from information received following the Government's announcement, at least 11,500 people each year will be disqualified from taking part in further education because of that cut. It is also believed that that is a gross underestimate.
  During discussions on the Minister's statement in mid-February, she said that there would be some losers, but that the Government could not put a figure on it, or were not prepared to do so. The truth of the matter is that the Government are making the reduction to save £40 million. It is not about clarifying the position in respect of the 21-hour rule as regards educational establishments, or pulling it into line with the Government's position on other benefits and access to them; it is about saving £40 million. This Bill is about saving £400 million from the benefits of those who have been put on the dole by Government economic policies.
  What will be the result of this swingeing cut? It will undermine training programmes that are run with social fund assistance. It will put at serious risk the viability of further education colleges that specialise in helping the long-term unemployed to train or study.
  The Government's meanness seems to move in the opposite direction to the needs and wishes of further education colleges, students, the jobless, teaching organisations, trade unions and employers. All those with a stake in further education and training have argued that, rather than reduce the 21 hours to 16, the Bill should have contained measures to relax the 21-hour rule and make it easier for people on the dole to take up part-time training and study. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the Government in advance of the Bill, they have chosen not to relax the arrangements but to tighten them up and introduce far more coercion into the system.
  This Government are the only western Government with an advanced economy who are now disinvesting in training and further education. Because of changes in both national and international markets, we see a dramatic change in how people are employed in local labour markets. Governments overseas and in Europe are meeting that challenge with massive investment in education and retraining. Only this Government are taking steps both in the Bill and the Budget to reduce overall funding in the education and training budgets. They have cut more than £300 million from training budgets, tightened the rules and undermined people's opportunities to have genuine access to education and retraining to allow them to return to the marketplace and seek employment in their local labour market or further afield in the British or European economies.
  In many instances, the current rules provided a genuine open door for individuals who, through sheer misfortune, found themselves out of a job and needing to train or
  378
  retrain to improve their career chances and job hopes. May I give an example of the type of individuals who will be badly affected by the proposal? In Committee, my hon. Friends and I referred to individuals anonymously. I hope that the Minister accepts that we do so to protect the individuals concerned rather than mislead or deceive anybody about the circumstances.
  Mr. P, aged 28, was made redundant from a junior management post and was unsuccessful in obtaining work for some while. He had no formal qualifications and had experience of work only in the retail trade. He took an access course under the 21-hour rule while employed and is now in a residential care home with the intention of qualifying as a social worker. There can be no guarantee under the new 16-hour rule, which will apply a much tighter definition and a shorter period of learning each week, that that gentleman will be able to escape unemployment and find a route into a worthwhile occupation by retraining.
  In Committee, we gave specific examples of individuals who had been denied access to income through unemployment benefit and income support while retraining for the caring professions. Despite that evidence, the Government made no effort to acknowledge that those individuals would be affected in that way or to acknowledge the hardship that their proposal would cause. The Bill is a lost opportunity to invest in people and get them off the dole and into meaningful employment.
  The new 16-hour rule comes at a time when the long-term unemployed find it even more difficult to clamber back into the job market. Those with low skills are more likely to be long-term unemployed than highly skilled and qualified people, who find it easier to get another job. The unskilled and semi-skilled are four times more likely to lose their jobs than the average person and less likely to find a new job quickly. Those with few or no qualifications form the majority of the long-term unemployed, 38 per cent. of whom have no qualifications and 58 per cent. of whom have qualifications below 0-level standard. Unqualified men are four times more likely to be unemployed than graduate men and eight times more likely to be out of work for more than a year.
  Those are not Labour party statistics but figures produced from Government labour force market surveys. Government statistics show that long-term unemployment exists because of under-investment in training. Those trapped in that position find it increasingly difficult to enter the marketplace, which is why the Government continue to pay benefit whereas they should invest in giving people opportunities to be in gainful employment. The Government have chosen to ignore the evidence and have taken steps to tighten up the 21-hour rule to 16 hours.
  Skills among the jobless become out of date quickly, which further penalises their chances of getting back to work. In a world of rapid technological change, employees need continually to update their skills. The longer the period that someone is out of work, the less currency his old skills and qualifications have. Labour Members like me who represent former mining, textile and engineering communities have seen that all too clearly. Direct intervention has resulted in the dislocation of our local economies and, almost overnight, tens of thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers, mainly men, have found themselves unemployed. Their skills have become redundant because of the changing nature of

  379
  the local economy, and low-skill, part-time employment has been offered in place of their previous permanent, high-skill employment.
  It is precisely those groups of men and women who require the opportunity to study and train under the 21-hour rule to learn completely new skills that will give them an opportunity to get back into the labour market, yet they will be worst affected by the Government's proposals. I sometimes think that the Government do not give a damn what happens to mining, textile or heavy engineering communities because, on each and every occasion, their direct action has led to mounting unemployment and a dislocation of employment patterns in those communities. The employment opportunities of those former work forces are increasingly reduced. Unemployed people are offered part-time menial jobs because we have an economy in which skilled jobs are being replaced by unskilled, part-time, semi-skilled employment. Eight out of 10 new jobs created under this Government are part time. Although the opportunity for full-time employment has been ominously eradicated by the Government's proposals, they intend further to reduce access to training and education.
  On numerous occasions in Committee, we attempted to get some information from the Government about why those who attend European social fund courses are treated as second-class citizens. The rules that relate to those courses are radically different from those that relate to programmes directly supported by the Department of Employment. The contrast is stark. People on training for work courses are guaranteed benefit plus £10 a week and are not required to be available for or actively seeking work.
  Unemployed people who want to take up a place on a European social fund course and need to retain their benefit payments can do so only under the limits of the 21-hour rule. That means that they cannot participate in a full-time training programme but must remain immediately available for full-time work and show that they are actively seeking work. They must continue to sign on and attend compulsory restart interviews and courses like job plan workshops or workwise, irrespective of whether those courses cut across the European social fund course that they are attending.
  If successfully completed, European social fund courses provide individuals with a marketable skill. Despite that, the Government will reduce or stop benefit entitlement if, during those courses, an individual fails to attend a compulsory restart interview or a compulsory job plan workshop. A student who applies for or participates in a course cannot take the course employer or provider to an industrial tribunal on the grounds of racial or sexual discrimination.
  5.30 pm
  If an unemployed person, who has signed on, takes up a full-time training place through the European social fund, he loses the right to income support and his automatic entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. That person also loses automatic entitlement to free dental treatment and free prescriptions, becomes ineligible for some of the loans available from the social security social fund and must forgo assistance with mortgage interest payments.
  380
  Why do the Government take such draconian action against an individual seeking retraining and qualification through the European social fund? For many unemployed people, that fund represents the most practical way back into the labour market, because in many areas of high unemployment the European social fund is providing the practical investment for training and education. Why do the Government insist on treating those trainees differently from those who receive funding through our Department of Employment?
  It has been suggested that the European social fund training programmes simply represent the means for the Department of Employment to distribute money and that the arrangement is purely administrative. I find it strange that as a result of a purely administrative arrangement people may be denied a range of benefits, including council tax benefit and income support. In fact, they run the risk of losing access to any income. Surely the arrangement is a bit more than an administrative one. In truth, the Government have always opposed European social fund schemes in, for example, former coal mining communities. When the Government were forced, for political reasons, to accept the necessity of European social funding of education and training courses, they decided to make it increasingly difficult, through the nature of the rules they set, for people to participate in those schemes or to take full advantage of them. We receive additional resources from our European partners in the Community to help retrain and redeploy tens of thousands of unemployed people. It is disastrous that the Government should simply respond by undermining an unemployed person's ability to participate in and complete such a course.
  It is important for the Government to say that they intend to integrate the rules governing European social fund courses with those courses under their direct responsibility. It seems only sensible that that relationship should be equitable. After all, the qualification gained from a European social fund course is recognised by the Government as a route back into employment. Despite that, the Government seem intent on continuing to undermine the rights of people who join such courses.
  The Government should have used the Bill to deal with the real issue—the 21-hour rule—because they received thousands upon thousands of requests from citizens advice bureaux and other organisations to do just that. Six key amendments are necessary. What is meant by actively seeking work should be defined more clearly. What is meant by being immediately available for work, when many individuals on courses of 10 hours—not 16 or 21—have lost the right to benefit because of the interpretation that local employment officers have placed on those courses and those individuals' availability for work?
  That leads on to the problem of arbitrary local decision making. The Minister said nothing in Committee about what she intended to do about that. She failed to mention that, as a result of such decision making, however, individuals on the same type of course, or even on the same course, are dealt with differently by different officers who judge their respective ability to continue a course or their right to receive benefit while on that course.
  The Minister has tried to define the difference between full-time and part-time education through her attempts to reduce 21 hours of supervised study to 16 hours. When the problem of that definition was originally raised by

  381
  Opposition Members and organisations representing the unemployed, we had supposed that the Minister would not reduce the hours from 21 to 16, but would extend the regulations to allow people to enjoy a full 21 hours of learning rather than run the risk of having their ability to continue on a course undermined by Employment Service officers.
  Local DSS officers have different customs and practices, which has led to many people losing their right to benefit, despite the fact that their circumstances are similar to, if not exactly the same as, those of claimants on courses in other parts of the country. There is no clear central guidance from the Department about how individuals should be treated sympathetically.
  The Bill is a wasted opportunity on the Government's part. It has undermined the capability and the range of options of many thousands of unemployed people. The proposals are not only mean-minded, but unforgivable. The Government, having first placed hundreds of thousands of people on the dole, are now attempting to blame them for that. They are using coercive measures to reduce funding for the very schemes that would allow unemployed people to get back into work. If the Minister does not respond positively to the debate, we will divide on the new clause.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: We all recognise how crucial it is to develop the competences and skills of our people. That is what individuals want in terms of their personal fulfilment and it is absolutely necessary for our economy.
  There is no lack of evidence to tell us that the unemployed want training and education. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, some 80,000 unemployed people are studying while in receipt of benefit. The Employment Service national customer satisfaction survey in 1993 revealed that 60 per cent. of the unemployed people surveyed were interested in finding training opportunities; of that number, 32 per cent. wanted to train for a specific occupation, 27 per cent. wanted to pursue a vocational qualification and 17 per cent. wanted an educational qualification.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has recognised that need and addressed herself to the reform of benefit regulations as they bear on part-time study. I welcome the fact that she has modified the regulations in recognition of the ending of the old distinction between part-time and full-time work resulting from the way in which further education courses are now delivered.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is increasingly difficult to cling to that distinction for higher education. Open university courses already benefit a considerable number of unemployed people. The increasing move toward credit accumulation and the increasing tendency for higher education courses to be franchised for their delivery to further education colleges suggests that, over time, there is likely to be a blurring of the distinction between further education and higher education in terms of vocational studies.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to respond to a number of questions for written answer that I had tabled. I noted her acknowledgement that part-time education
  "can enhance some clients' prospects of finding work".
  I welcome that recognition as far as it goes, although it was perhaps a less fulsome recognition than I would ideally have wished. We need to adopt a much more
  382
  positive view of the desirability of providing opportunities and supporting unemployed people to undertake studies so that they can upgrade their skills. Their right to study while drawing benefit is termed a concession. If that approach is carried through from income support to jobseeker's allowance, I fear that it will remain somewhat too negative.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has robustly, and rightly, argued that the move from a 21-hour rule to a 16-hour rule in respect of part-time studies is not a cut; those 80,000 people will still be able to study under the new rules. However, not only do we want to preserve the present position but we want many more people to be encouraged and enabled to undertake studies. Policy should encourage part-time study.
  Unemployed people often believe that an employer is more likely to rate highly what they have gained from pursuing a course that leads to an academic or vocational qualification than what they have gained from taking part in one of the Government's own courses.
  We speak in terms of an Employment Service. That term suggests that it should not always be assumed that the Employment Service knows better than unemployed people what is appropriate for them. I recognise that there is to be a spirit of consultation and discussion in the development of individual jobseekers' agreements.
  I submit that an unemployed person should be able to embark on a part-time course confident that she or he will not lose benefits as a result, and should have every prospect of completing the course. However, at the moment it is not quite like that. Far from systematically building in encouragement to study, in too many instances we appear to discourage it.
  I was disappointed that the learning for work scheme was so quickly scrapped. That scheme would have allowed as many as 30,000 people to take full-time vocational courses. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have had good reasons to discontinue support for that programme, but at first blush it appears to be a slightly retrograde decision.
  I am also somewhat disappointed that the target under training for work for the numbers of participants to achieve qualifications has been lowered from 39 per cent. to 30 per cent. Training for work is accepted as a positive outcome in respect of restart interviews, but it appears that we are missing an opportunity by not allowing other opportunities for education and training to be treated as "positive outcomes", in the jargon.
  That is especially strange, in that signing off from benefits and benefit sanctions are regarded as positive outcomes. They may be outcomes that are justified in specific circumstances, but it is strange to call them positive outcomes. I regretted the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was unable, in her answers to me yesterday, to confirm that part-time study would be regarded as a positive outcome at restart interviews.
  I do not know the extent to which my hon. Friend the Minister has already clarified arrangements for incentivising Employment Service officials to discourage—if that is not too strong a word—unemployed people from undertaking part-time education and training. Will she clarify to what extent the system of incentives for Employment Service officials does, in effect, discourage unemployed people from undertaking part-time education and training? My impression is that we are at least moving

  383
  towards arrangements whereby the remuneration of Employment Service officials is related to their contribution to enabling the service to achieve its business objectives. Among its business objectives are those "positive outcomes", which do not include part-time education and training.
  5.45 pm
  I also remember noting in the Employment Service agreement that there was a target for challenging benefit claims. Where is the incentive for Employment Service officials positively to encourage unemployed people to improve their skills beyond the opportunities provided under training for work—opportunities that are, sadly, diminishing in number? Jobseekers' directions will reinforce the scope for Employment Service officials to steer unemployed people towards outcomes other than education and training.
  We already have a tightened availability test. As I understand it, if unemployed people are to be eligible to receive benefit, they must satisfy the requirement that they should be willing to take time off their course for a job interview, they must be willing to adjust their attendance to fit in with a job and they must be willing to give up a course at once to take a job.
  I am especially worried about the latter requirement. Is it really sensible—is it far-sighted—to insist that an unemployed person should abandon a course if a temporary job is offered, or if an unskilled job is offered, when he is developing a higher level of skills, which would enable him, in quite a short period, to contribute more effectively to the creation of wealth in our economy? That appears to me wasteful and short-termist.
  I suspect that that is somewhat akin in approach to the thinking that underlies the notion of the permitted period, which is reaffirmed in the new policy. A permitted period, so-called, will be of 13 weeks, during which people claiming benefit are entitled to confine their search for work to work that matches their skills and experience. Thirteen weeks is a very short time to allow for that. After 13 weeks, they will have to accept any job that the Employment Service considers appropriate for them.
  I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is prodigal—somewhat too destructive—after only 13 weeks to set aside a person's accumulated skills and knowledge. That approach appears to me consistent with the requirement to give up a course immediately if any job comes on offer. We should value and nurture higher levels of skills more than we do at the moment.
  I was surprised to note that revised instructions in the context of unemployment benefit regulations were issued last summer which insisted that people should be disqualified from benefit if they had paid more than £100 to attend a course or if their course led to a qualification needed for the job that they were seeking. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; I am happy to withdraw that point if I am in error. I am puzzled by that measure, because it appears to be almost a surreal policy. Surely it must be desirable that people should pursue courses that lead to qualifications that better enable them to do the jobs that they want to do.
  I understand why full-time students should not be smuggled into the benefit system and I well understand the dilemmas that confront my hon. Friends, but how insistent do we have to be—how much on the qui vive do we have to be—to cut off benefit when there is even the
  384
  faintest suspicion that someone might be a so-called student? We should try to be as flexible and constructive as we can.
  Speaking as a Warwickshire Member of Parliament, I must also comment on the dearth of funding for discretionary awards in our county. We have not seen discretionary awards for some years. Every now and again, the local authority is sued by someone who feels that it is only fair that, living in the county of Warwickshire, he, like people living elsewhere, should have at least the opportunity to obtain a discretionary award. But that does not occur.
  We should invest in education. I am worried about the collapse of the discretionary awards system. Some of the features of the system which I have been describing seem to discourage self-help and the impulse to self-improvement, values that my hon. Friends often praise. In addition, it does not help that the regulations are somewhat inconsistently applied.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield touched on European social fund-funded courses. The Government's position on that subject seems to be curious. As I understand it, they argue that resources for the courses are not payable out of public funds, but they are derived from the European Union, whose funding is derived from the taxpayer. Also, the funds are administered by, among others, local education authorities. That seems to be a quibbling distinction that tends to discourage and take away opportunities.
  In one of her answers to me, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that client advisers would give advice and guidance on part-time education opportunities. I am glad that she has been able to place that on the record. The 1993 survey which I mentioned found that more than half the unemployed people inquiring about vocational qualifications went elsewhere—presumably, because the Employment Service found it difficult to answer them. We were told in the survey that the Employment Service was able to supply information to only one third of unemployed people interested in pursuing an educational qualification. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her determination to improve on that state of affairs.
  On a more general note, abuse by a few should not prejudice the opportunities of the many. Of course, my hon. Friends are right to say that we must police the system to ensure that people are not able to exist on benefit while pretending to be on courses and to be undertaking education and training. That would be unacceptable, but we should not design a system to which that consideration is central. It is a valid factor, but we should do everything that we can to ensure that as many good-quality training and education opportunities as possible are available.
  I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are afraid that if they increase public expenditure, even on education and training, they will be visited by the most terrible retribution by international markets. But that will depend on the quality and purpose of the public expenditure we undertake and on what we fail to do. If we were to degrade our labour force by pursuing a low-skill, low-pay policy, international investors might look elsewhere. Quite rationally, they would become much less interested in investing in our economy. The devaluation of our skills would have just as damaging a long-term effect on our

  385
  economic fortunes as the devaluation of our money through inflation has had over a previous generation. International investors are more likely to back our economy if we demonstrate that we are investing in human capital.
  I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the context of her announcement on the 16-hour rule. She recognised the need to focus help where people have poor skills or where their skills are obsolete. I welcome, too, the commitment in her press release to keep the situation under review.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: This is a short debate, so I shall condense my remarks.
  I raised this issue at Employment questions and wish briefly to exercise my right of reply. In response to my question of 7 March, the Minister argued that there was no change and that the new position would be the same as the existing one. She said:
  "At present, the 21-hour rule covers both guided learning hours and private study".—[Official Report, 7 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 134.]
  When I checked regulation 9(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, I discovered that the reference was to supervised study. There is a crucial difference. Will the Minister admit that 21 supervised hours are becoming 16 guided learning hours? There is a change—will she admit it? I know that, in a sense, the reason why the Minister says that there is no change is that many other mechanisms have been introduced to attack the rights of the unemployed to part-time study and education.
  I would refer in detail to Employment Service notice 7/95, issued in January, but I do not have time to do so. It deals with the definition of "student" and tries to define as students more and more people who are studying part time, thus disqualifying them on the grounds that they are students. Employment Service notice 104/94, issued in July—to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred—attacked people's rights in terms of their availability for work. I mentioned the subject on Second Reading. Students who pay more than £100 for a course are automatically disqualified from benefit. If the course leads to a qualification needed for the job for which they are looking, they are also disqualified.
  The rights of unemployed people to undertake part-time study are being attacked. We opposed those regulations and we oppose the new change, which takes us in the wrong direction. Everyone says that we want to expand the rights of the unemployed to part-time education and training because that will create the skills that the economy so badly needs.
  Miss Widdecombe: Once again, the debate has been interesting and once again, there is common ground between Opposition and Conservative Members on the necessity to make it possible for people who are looking for work to undertake courses of part-time study or to undertake training that will enhance their job prospects. That was very much uppermost in our minds when we formed the rules that were to apply under the jobseeker's allowance.
  In response to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I must say that it is simply not true that the Government are disinvesting in further education and training. The reverse is true. There is a planned increase of 25 per cent. in further education starts between 1993–94
  386
  and 1995–96. I do not think that an increase of 25 per cent. is a disinvestment. There is a planned further expenditure on further education of £2.7 billion. I am not certain how that can be called disinvestment.
  This country stands up extremely well in terms of training investment and its outcomes when compared with its European neighbours. In 1990, 94 per cent. of 16-year-olds were undertaking some sort of education and training—that figure is among the highest in the main developed countries. In 1991, a higher proportion of the United Kingdom's population between the ages of 14 and 49 had recently undertaken a period of education and training than was the case in France, West Germany or most other European Union countries. Our record is a proud one. The Opposition always believe that if we are not spending more, we cannot be doing more. But we are offering the same number of opportunities through our training and our special programmes as we have offered previously—1.5 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is utterly wrong to pick out just one programme of training for work and make deductions from it while ignoring the measures for training in the White Paper on competitiveness, the creation of modern apprenticeships and the large number of other initiatives such as Investors in People. All those factors show our clear commitment.
  I shall explain the change. Once again, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wrong. Supervised study was a combination of tutored and private study. There was and has been until recently a clear distinction between part-time and full-time education. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon warned me that we may not be able to maintain the distinction in higher education for ever, but for the moment we can, which is why there was no change. But the distinction has become so blurred in further education, where more and more courses are modular and based on guided learning hours, that there is no longer a common definition of what is part time.
  The net result was that rules were being applied inconsistently from area to area because there was no recognised definition of "part-time". In seeking to redefine part-time study—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford has welcomed our efforts—we were guided very much by the view that we should help the same number of people. There has been no reduction in assistance. We currently help about 80,000 people and some 80,000 people will be assisted under the new proposals.
  6 pm
  Mr. Chisholm: Was not unsupervised study specifically excluded in the 1970s, whereas now it will be included?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I understand that his concern is genuine and I honestly believe that he is confused—I do not mean that rudely. I shall explain it to him later.
  Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have written to her about a constituency case and, uncharacteristically, I have not received an instant response, so it must be a difficult question. A man in my constituency in his early 30s

  387
  who is currently studying for 15 hours per week has been told by the Department of Social Security that he no longer qualifies for assistance because he does "homework"—to use the Department's term. That seems quite extraordinary and, judging from what the Minister has said, it must be incorrect.
  Miss Widdecombe: I will make the position clear. The person who is studying must not allow that study—be it homework or supervised study—to conflict with his or her availability for work.
  Mr. Enright: It does not.
  Miss Widdecombe: If it does not, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about the matter. I will examine exactly what has occurred and reply to him. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not receive an instant response—we are a trifle busy in my Department at the moment. However, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman.
  I turn briefly to the question asked by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the European social fund. I am baffled as to why the hon. Gentleman is making such a meal of the ESF. Should we conclude from the Opposition's new clause that they want all ESF courses to be treated in the same way? Would the Labour party undertake that spending commitment?
  Under our proposals, ESF-funded courses will be treated like any other course. If people undertake an ESF-funded course which is part of our training scheme, such as training for work, the rules of that scheme will apply. If they receive a training allowance and not a jobseeker's allowance they will not have to be available for work. However, if they are undertaking the course while receiving JSA, the rules of JSA will apply. That is common sense.
  I get the impression that the Opposition are struggling tonight. Their kneejerk opposition to the legislation was based on the false assumption that it would mean a reduction in assistance. That has been disproved and Labour Members feel that they must justify their ridiculous stand in some other way. There is no reduction in assistance. The Government have made a clear commitment to funding part-time study and that commitment will continue. I think that the Opposition should withdraw their new clause 4 and perhaps, in so doing, Labour Members might also apologise for misinterpreting the legislation.
  Mr. McCartney: If there are any apologies to be made tonight about the unemployed, they should come from Conservative Members. There have been two recessions in the past decade and there are 3.5 million people unemployed. Yet Government Members have the cheek to come to the Chamber and ask Opposition Members to apologise for the effects of mass unemployment.
  The Minister of State has failed once again to answer the pertinent questions about why the Government discriminate against people on European social fund courses. The truth is that the Minister is disinvesting in training. The Secretary of State goes around the country saying that he is disinvesting in training and education; he prides himself on that fact. The training for work scheme has been cut by 66,000 places and the learning for work scheme has been cut by 30,000 places.
  388
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely right: the Government have cut grants to local education authorities to such an extent that virtually no money is available for training or for creating further employment opportunities through further education. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting for the new clause in order to assist the unemployed of this country.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 277.

  Division No. 108]

  [6.04 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Austin-Walker, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, John

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

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

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hain, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Church, Judith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  389

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Khabra, Piara S

  Redmond, Martin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  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

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Short, Clare

  McKelvey, William

  Simpson, Alan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  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

  Wallace, James

  Miller, Andrew

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Olner, Bill

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pearson, Ian

  Ms Tessa Jowell and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkins, Robert

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  390

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gallie, Phil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  391

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mans, Keith

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spring, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stem, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ottaway Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Townsend, Cyril D(Baxl'yh'th)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trend, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trottter, Neville

  Pickles, Eric

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Watts John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

  LOANS FOR BACK TO WORK EXPENSES
  '.—(1) Regulations shall make provision for the payment in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed items, of sums in the form of repayable loans to or in respect of persons, who are or have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support.
  (2) A sum payable under the regulations shall be known as a "jobstart loan".
  (3) The question whether a jobstart loan is to be awarded and how much it is to be shall be determined by an adjudication officer.
  (4) In determining whether a jobstart loan shall be paid under this section, and the amount of any such loan, regard shall be had, so far as regulations so provide, to the income or capital of the claimant.
  (5) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, provide for—

  (a) a jobstart loan to be payable only on the occurrence of a prescribed event;

  (b) a jobstart loan not to be payable unless a claim is made before the end of a prescribed period;

  (c) the amount of a jobstart loan not to exceed a prescribed amount;

  (d) the amount of any jobstart loan otherwise payable to be reduced where the claimant has income or capital of a prescribed description which exceeds a prescribed amount;

  (e) a jobstart loan to be repayable after a prescribed period, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.'.—[Ms Lynne.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Lynne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall not detain the House for long on new clause 5. It is a modest measure which recognises the financial barriers that can hinder unemployed people who are keen to work from taking work once they are offered it. I should prefer grants to be made more available to get people back into work or to help them when they have got back into work. If the jobfinder's grant were payable after six months of unemployment instead of after two years, that would be a step in the right direction—but I do not imagine that the Government will move on that.
  My small proposal for a modest, interest-free loan for people starting work could be implemented at little cost. In that way, when people have stopped receiving benefit and are waiting for their first pay cheque, they would not be left without money in their first week or month of employment. I envisage a loan in the region of £500, to assist with living expenses, travel to work and other employment-related costs.
  A citizens advice bureau in western England reported the case of one client who had found a new job after five months' unemployment. His wife had been in work but had been off sick the previous three months and was about to have her income reduced from half pay to statutory sick pay. The client had borrowed as much as he could from the bank and was worried about supporting himself and his wife while awaiting his first pay cheque a month later as his employer was unwilling to pay his salary after two weeks. In eastern England, a citizens advice bureau reported the case of a client who came off unemployment benefit to start a job. After two weeks, she had no money left and a fortnight to go before receiving her first pay cheque. She was unable to afford her bus fares and was worried that she might lose her job, which she was enjoying tremendously. Neither the DSS nor the jobcentre could assist her. In such circumstances, I do not suggest payment of a grant, but a repayable loan.
  It is also difficult for people to repay their debts after leaving the benefit system and before receiving a salary. The Benefits Agency has established a good scheme for the direct payment of debts to gas and electricity companies, and to others to whom a claimant owes money, but when a person starts work that scheme comes to an end and the individual has to renegotiate his own debt repayments. Invariably, the gas company, for

  393
  example, will want to negotiate a higher repayment rate and often is not prepared to wait a month before payments begin.
  A loan would also be useful to pay for work tools or for special clothing or footwear, without which the individual might be unable to take a job. The person might need driving lessons, or a driving course if he intended to set up as a minicab driver. A loan would also help to meet the cost of a medical examination if required.
  The loan could be claimed before the individual started work or within 28 days of doing so. If the person had savings of more than £500, the loan could be reduced. Repayments would be interest free, commencing 13 weeks after the start of employment, as it would be unreasonable to expect the person to start repaying it before he was re-established, and there would be a maximum repayment term of three years.
  I hope that the Government can see their way clear to accepting new clause 5, which would help people seeking work to begin new employment. Otherwise, many people may be debarred from saying yes to a new job because they do not have the right clothes or cannot meet the travelling expenses involved.
  Mr. Bradley: Although most of the time in Committee was spent on the main thrust of the Bill—which is to cut benefits—there were frequent debates on measures to help people back to work. As the Government had called the measure the Jobseekers Bill, we hoped that they would take every opportunity to accept suggestions to help people back to work. I pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux and to other organisations which, throughout the Committee stage and since, have provided invaluable information on the detail of the Bill and on cases such as those cited by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) which illustrate the difficulties that people experience when they want to take up work but do not have the means to do so.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale could not serve on the Committee during those deliberations because she was serving on the Committee considering the Disability Discrimination Bill. In view of the contributions that the Liberal Democrats are making now, it is unfortunate that they were unable to produce another spokesperson in Committee on the Jobseekers Bill as I am sure that we would have welcomed that support.
  One is always reluctant to support the introduction of more loans into the social security system. We have learnt from bitter experience that the replacement of grants by loans under the social fund—because of the inequitable way in which that system can be administered with cash-limited budgets—leads to disparities of treatment depending on when people come through the door.
  I was always under the impression that one stood more chance of a social fund loan at the beginning of the year when the new budget was in place, and when offices were more likely to treat claimants sympathetically, but research shows that the reverse is true. Social fund officers are so worried about exhausting their funds too early in the year that they store up money and administer the fund only towards the end of the year. That is clearly unacceptable and inequitable, and leads to claimants in identical circumstances being treated differently in the course of the year.
  394
  Our experience of the social fund and of the Student Loans Company has shown that loans are expensive to administer and we would certainly not want to use the latter as a model for new clause 5. However, a loan is better than nothing and we approve new clause 5 in those terms because we must give whatever help we can to encourage people to take up new employment.
  New clause 5 is modest in that, as with our earlier new clauses, it would allow the Government to prescribe the circumstances, amounts and operation of loans in regulations. At this stage, we are not asking the Government to accept a defined proposal which would create tremendous costs—the money would be paid back. We are not asking for an open-ended commitment to the loan: we are looking to the Government to take the modest view that such a scheme should be considered with a view to coming back with the detail at the regulation stage to debate the matter further.
  The Labour party supports the new clause. We believe that it should be added to the package of measures that the Government have introduced, modest as they are. I do not believe that this additional modest measure should be denied by the Government. We leave it in their hands to come forward with the detail. I believe that this enabling new clause would be to the great benefit of unemployed people and I hope that in that spirit the Minister will accept the new clause.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was rather torn in his speech. He began by saying that he was reluctant to see the extension of loans in the social security sphere and gently chided the social fund for a number of faults which he and his colleagues have put to Ministers in the past. He referred to loans being expensive to administer and even referred to the Student Loans Company, but at the end of the day he said that the new clause was good and that it simply empowered the Government to do things. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that there is perhaps some ambiguity in the hon. Gentleman's position.
  6.30 pm
  I must say straight away that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) raised a most important issue, and I do not disagree with her fundamental proposition that there are difficulties for people moving into work after a period of unemployment. The question is what is the best combination of ways in which we can assist. People in that position face a number of problems and it is a matter of putting a number of measures together to deal with them.
  My approach to the problem has been this. It is important to recognise that in the Bill and in other Government actions we have introduced a number of proposals, the first of which—the jobfinder's grant—was mentioned by the hon. Lady. The 1994 Budget announced the nationwide expansion of that scheme from April 1995, with 25,000 grants available each year. The main national programme will have a fixed grant of £200 available to all people unemployed for two years who take a job paying less than £150 per week. The hon. Lady welcomed that, but sought to persuade me that we should reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months. The difficulty, of course, is cost. The grant targets help on those who most need it and the cost will be £5 million. Obviously, that sum would increase considerably, the

  395
  more the period of qualification was reduced. We have determined that it is best to focus that help on the long-term unemployed.
  The second two measures are in the Bill before us. The back-to-work bonus is a measure whereby for claimants who have taken small amounts of work while on benefit, a bonus will build up, to be paid when they go back into work. The gross costs in the first full year 1997–98 will be £50 million.
  Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister explain why the Government intend to include the lump sum of £1,000 in capital for the calculation of other benefits?
  Mr. Evans: It will be included in capital after 52 weeks. The point at stake is that that sum of money, which will have been built up by work and effort, will be available to be spent on all the problems that have been mentioned, for example, when the breadwinner of a family is moving back into work. That is a positive and real way of helping.
  The third item in the Government's package is one that I mentioned earlier—the four-week run-on of housing benefit and council tax benefit to ensure that the family will be able to afford the rent in the first four weeks. The cost, again, is £50 million.
  Those measures are already a substantial package and they are targeted at the unemployed who need most help—the long-term unemployed. The measures are a most important advance, but they involve significant extra expenditure. I must tell the hon. Lady, therefore, that in view of that package we do not propose now to introduce additional proposals for loans. As the hon. Member for Withington recognised, loans—even modest ones of £500—involve an administrative cost, so it would not be fair to say that the proposal would be cost-neutral.
  Let us see how the measures that we have proposed work out. We recognise the problem that the hon. Lady identified and we shall, of course, continue to review whether any further measures—whether loans or other initiatives—are needed to address that continuing problem.
  For the reasons that I have given, I invite my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
  Ms Lynne: I am disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to accepting the new clause. It is a modest measure and would involve little cost for the Government. I believe that unemployed people will be hindered from taking work. Those who want to take work and are offered a job may not be able to meet some of the expenses and may have to turn the offer down.
  When the Minister talks about the cost of administering the measure, he must balance that against the cost of people staying on benefits. I gave an example of a woman who could not get to work because she did not have enough money for the bus fare. She was going to have to give up her job because she could not afford to get to work. She had no money whatever. We are talking about people who would have to stay on benefit or return to benefit. It would be more cost-effective if the Government accepted the new clause.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) about the social fund. I am not asking for a grant to be replaced by a loan. I am not in favour of the social fund and would prefer to
  396
  see a grant brought back in, but this is a new, small loan, and it is up to the Government to decide how much it should be. I said that it should be in the region of £500, because that seems a reasonable amount when the person has a month's travel costs and also the cost of new clothing and so on to be taken into account. The Government have taken that into account with the back-to-work bonus. A person who has been unemployed for some time may well need a new suit. He may need different clothes for the job. He needs to be able to pay debts that have built up.
  Taking into account all that the Minister has said and the three measures that he has introduced, it is a very small and specific thing that I am asking for and I am disappointed that the Government feel unable to accept the new clause. I believe that in the long term it would be cost-effective. I therefore urge the House to join me in voting for the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 261.

  Division No.109]

  [6.38 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beggs, Roy

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Enright, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Etherington, Bill

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

  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)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blylh V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Foulkes, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chidgey, David

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Church, Judith

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cohen, Harry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Connarty, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  397

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mowlam, Maijorie

  Harvey, Nick

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rendel, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maddock, Diana

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marek, Dr John

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Touhig, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Welsh, Andrew

  398

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Simon Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfteld)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evennett, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Gallie, Phil

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Roberts (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  399

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, Sir David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Partick (Norwich N)

  Thomtn, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Norris, Steve

  Walden George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

  DURATION OF A CONTRIBUTION-BASED JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'him from' and insert 'his'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7 to 10, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 29, 30 and 36 to 38.
  Miss Widdecombe: I understand that the Opposition are content not to have an exposition amendment by amendment. Many of the amendments, of course, have been tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members in Committee, including the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—he is not here, sadly—who debated the gerund and possessive pronoun extensively. Other amendments make clear the policy intention, in some cases just changing "and" to "the," or "the" to "and". I therefore wish to move the amendment without further discussion.
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for the succinct explanation of the amendments. We do not want line-by-line clarification of them, but in Committee we opposed every aspect of the measures that are being tidied up. By not having a vote, I do not want it to be construed that we support the clauses to which those tidying-up amendments refer. With that explanation, we accept the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6
  AVAILABILITY FOR, AND ACTIVELY SEEKING, EMPLOYMENT
  Amendment made: No. 7, in page 6, line 11, leave out `actually'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
Clause 7

  THE JOBSEEKER'S AGREEMENT
  Mr. McCartney: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—
  '(6A) A jobseekers agreement may specify that a claimant need not be available for or seek, employment other than at a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration.'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 16, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
  `(1A) Nothing in section 15, or in regulations under that section, shall be taken to prevent payment of a jobseekers allowance merely because the claimant refuses to seek or accept employment other than at the minimum amount of remuneration prescribed under section 7(6A) above.'.
  Mr. McCartney: I exclude the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) from criticisms that I will make of his party in relation to the minimum wage and to in-work poverty. The hon. Gentleman has more than a fair record on those issues. It is pity that he was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. He would have assisted us greatly when Opposition Members moved the amendments to improve the Bill in relation to unemployed people.
  The amendments have been tabled specifically to deal with minimum earnings. The reason we have done that, as I shall set out in detail, is the context of the debate. The Tory party is a party of fat-cat excess, exploitation and the dole—there can be no doubt about that. In 1993, directors in Britain's six top banks enjoyed salary increases of up to 181 per cent. Many of them made

  401
  profits of more than £4.8 billion. That orgy of greed has resulted in the axing of 72,000 jobs since 1990, and the closure of 2,252 branches in the past five years.
  The figures show how these godfathers of the bank boardrooms have been writing fat pay checks to themselves in the morning and redundancy notices to their employees in the afternoon. It is a scandal that pay has gone through the roof for top directors while thousands of their employees have faced a pay freeze or the sack. So what strategies do the Tories have for tackling the poverty trap? The answer is simply that they have none. They have turned Britain into a sweatshop. I want to set out the reasons why that is the case, and a diary of events on low pay.
  The Committee sat for the first time on 24 January this year. Interestingly, that was the first occasion on which Mr. Cedric Brown of British Gas discussed with members of the Select Committee on Employment his views on fair remuneration at work. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I am not someone who goes in for gongs or presentations, but my hon. Friend has been outstanding in her pursuit of greed in the boardroom at the expense of ordinary workers at the work place. Much of the exposure of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on these issues and its sham support for low-paid workers has been down to my hon. Friend.
  On 1 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow Secretary of State for Employment, released figures from the Government's own new earnings survey. They showed that Sir lain Vallance earned more in a day than 80 per cent. of Britons earn in a month—more than 17.3 million people had to work a month to earn what Sir Iain Vallance earns in a day. On 9 February, when the Committee was sitting, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on income and wealth stated that
  "low pay is a problem on unprecedented scales. The lowest 10 per cent. of hourly paid workers are earning less now than in 1975 while the top 10 per cent. are earning 50 per cent. more."
  On 14 February the Minister of State, Department of Employment, announced triumphantly to the Committee that considered the Bill that no lower income floor would exist to which an unemployed person could look for a safeguard against being offered a £1-an-hour job, or losing benefit. She trumpeted that as a triumph for the marketplace.
  On 16 February, a Sweatshop of Europe report entitled, "What Future?" was published. It contained a detailed analysis of the jobs and pay rates offered by the careers and employment services, which are directly under the control of the Minister. The report highlighted the fact that young people had to work about eight weeks full time to earn what the head of British Telecom earned in one hour. The Minister's Department is offering people in Britain jobs where they have to work eight weeks to earn what the head of BT earns in one hour of one day. Despite that, she still trumpets with triumph her commitment to offering to the unemployed jobs that pay £1 an hour or less.
  On 17 February, to their shame, Tory Ministers lined up to defend top pay awards and to attack the minimum wage proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. On 21 February, the International Labour Organisation attacked deregulation and stated that that
  402
  was not the pathway to greater job creation. It called on all Governments, and in particular this Government, to end poverty pay and to renew a commitment to full employment. The Government failed to respond to that by offering a debate in the House or even by offering the House a statement about their position on the ILO. The reason for that is that they do not want further to expose themselves publicly about their lack of commitment in relation to poverty pay. Their support for driving down wages further directly contravenes the ILO report.
  On 1 March, the Secretary of State for Employment put clear blue water between himself and the Prime Minister when he defended mega pay rises and attacked a minimum wage, offering himself as a standard bearer of the politics of greed and privilege. I was unfortunate enough to be there listening to that diatribe of attacks on the low-paid in Britain.
  On 7 March the banks were at it again, along with the privatised utilities. Jam, jam all the way for the rich and powerful, and dole, dole every day for more of the workers. There was a further scandalous announcement of mega pay rises and arrangements on pensions and share deals making them instant millionaires while workers were being made redundant, despite the fact that the profits were at the greatest level ever.
  7 pm
  On 15 March I issued a report highlighting the fact that privatised utility bosses have axed 126,000 jobs with another 82,000 to go in the next five years. So far, the jobs-to-dole strategy has cost the taxpayer £1 billion in benefit payments. That £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been used to strip out high-paid, high-quality jobs from the privatised utilities while the profits from those utilities go straight into the pockets of the few powerful people in charge of them. The Government responded by supporting that.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I will give way in a moment.
  On 17 March my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham published a further report saying that the axing of wages councils has led to a cut in wages and reduced levels of employment. That is a direct attack on the concept that the Secretary of State for Employment always parrots; that if wages are reduced, employment increases. That is entirely bogus and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham proved that to be so.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I said that I would give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has only just come into the Chamber. He was not around for the eight weeks during which we were discussing this issue in Committee. I will give way later.
  On 20 March my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham published a further report highlighting the fact that over 3 million workers now earn less than the national insurance contribution of £57 per week. Of that number, a shameful 74 per cent. are women. It beggars belief that as we come to the next century so many people are earning less than

  403
  £57 a week. Yet, the Government and their proposals in this Bill will force people to accept wage levels that are even lower than that.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman said that in the privatised industries money had been diverted into the pockets of the managers. That is a gross simplification. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is only since the privatisation of the water companies that they have begun to deal with the huge logjam of crumbling Victorian sewers? That is costing hundreds of millions of pounds and was not being dealt with when the industry was in state hands.
  Mr. McCartney: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should defend the Government's position on private utilities and that he went further to promote the water industry, which, since privatisation, has made thousands of people redundant. There have been record levels of cut-offs and record levels of profit at the expense of those who require water for the basic necessities of life. The hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House for his views on this matter. What about his constituents who have to suffer under the yoke of privatised utilities such as water which are increasing charges at the same time—
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It might be advisable if we returned to the subject of the minimum wage.
  Mr. McCartney: I apologise for allowing myself to be led down the wrong path. I will not do it again.
  On 21 March the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Security tabled a new clause, which will he debated tomorrow, to cut hardship payments to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds. It will confirm the £400 million cut in benefits for the unemployed.
  There it is. That is the catalogue of Government support for greed and privilege which occurred during the weeks in which the Bill was in Committee. At the end of that, the Government's only response is to attack unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds and reduce further their ability to live on or below the breadline. Many of those young people whom the Government intend to attack are kids who have come out of care and who may have been physically or sexually abused. Some of them are children with relationship problems or who have mental health or other health problems. The Government's only response is to defend the fat cats and the privileges in privatised industry. Those 16 and 17-year-olds will have no training place and no proper job to go to. It is no wonder that today Lord Whitelaw said of the Government:
  "This lot are a complete showerone of the worst Governments I can remember."
  Opposition Members could not agree more with those sentiments.
  Where have the Government got us? We are now the sweatshop of Europe. We have the longest working hours, the least holidays, poorest pensions, lowest pay and highest levels of insecurity. The bottom tenth of the population are 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than when this lot came to power. The proportion of households living in poverty has trebled from 7 per cent. to 24 per cent. of the population since the late 1970s. A total of 328,000 people in Britain earn less than £1.50 an hour. Over 1 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour.
  404
  Women have been badly hit by low pay—670,000 of them earn less than £2.50 an hour. In every part of Britain there is a serious low pay problem. Some of the worst affected areas are in regions such as Yorkshire, Humberside and the north. That coincides with high levels of structural unemployment. Those are the very areas that will be the worst affected by this Bill.
  The Government do not just stop there. Between 1984 and 1994 there has been an increase of 1 million people holding down two and sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet, and a further 4.5 million people are earning so little that they live on or below the poverty line. The Government promote that as an excellent idea. They say that that is what people should do in a deregulated marketplace. They say that people should find themselves a second or third job in order to develop their skills and energies and that they should be thankful for it. Interestingly, in The Guardian today there is a little more insight into what the Government really mean about their friends having little extra earners in little jobs. Seamus Milne, the labour correspondent said:
  "The £300,000-a-year chief executive of the privatised electricity generator Powergen left MPs investigating top corporate salaries speechless last night when he mentioned in passing he had three 'little jobs' on the side paying £36,000 a year."
  I must emphasise that they were "little jobs" on the side. Mr. Wallis took up share options of £876,194 last year and received a pension payment of £53,000. He stands to earn a £100,000 bonus. In defence of all that he said that the
  "extra jobs were all 'done in my own time'."
  For one meeting a year he was paid £17,000 by the British Standards Institute. That is not a bad rate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject. He may be talking about that gentleman's minimum wage—I do not know—but he should return to the amendment under discussion.
  Mr. McCartney: I was contrasting the Government's proposals in the Bill and their intention to drive down the position of the unemployed, who work for £1 an hour or less or run the risk of losing benefit, with their general policies in the labour market. The Bill supposedly provides opportunities for employment in the labour market.
  My contention, as shown by the evidence I have put to the House, is that the Government have double standards—one standard for their friends and one for the unemployed. It is legitimate to say why we have tabled these amendments. We want to put the unemployed at least on a level playing field. It may be that the job that is being offered leaves them worse off than when they are on benefit. They may be driven further into poverty by having to accept an employment opportunity that none of the Conservative Members would accept for themselves or their family.
  It is clear that Ministers would never accept those wage rates for the companies and individuals who support them, whether in the privatised industries, the private sector or the banking sector. It is legitimate to state precisely what the Government are doing with the Bill.
  Ms Eagle: Did my hon. Friend notice that Mr. Giordarno and Mr. Cedric Brown of British Gas said in their evidence to the Select Committee that they would have no objection whatsoever to a minimum wage?
  Mr. McCartney: It is interesting to note that a large and growing number of employers not only accept but promote the idea of minimum standards at work. Many companies which are involved in compulsory competitive tendering now recognise that one can maintain standards and opportunities in the marketplace for their goods and services only if they provide minimum standards of investment, training and education for the work force. Many companies now fear that, following the total deregulation of the labour market, competition will be on the basis of who can pay the least wages. Instead of investment in quality, there will simply be investment in the firms with the lowest wages. Companies will then be in an unfavourable position when trying to compete in the marketplace.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman may be able to make a speech during the debate. [Interruption.] I gave way to him earlier, and I was sorry I did because of the stupidity of his remarks.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman did not answer my question.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has had an answer. If he does not like it, he can lump it.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman adopts the intellectual approach.
  Mr. McCartney: It says a lot for the hon. Gentleman's intellect that he supports what is happening in the privatised utilities at the expense of those on low pay. If that is a sign of intellect, I am glad that I have my intellect and he has his.
  The Government have got themselves into a position where on the one hand, their proposals will further undermine the right of the unemployed to seek a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, while on the other hand, they will allow employers—such as the bosses of the privatised utilities—to set wage levels for their own benefit. There will be huge wage levels and minimum levels of pay for the privatised bosses, while no minimum level is set at the lower end of the market, where it will be left to the market to drive wages down further. With that will go the rights of unemployed people to seek employment which will take them out of poverty, and not drive them further into it.
  The Government's position is even more unsustainable when one looks at what the new JSA rules are doing to the incomes of people who are currently requiring benefits. Eighteen to 24-year-olds will lose £500 a year—a 20 per cent. cut—simply because they are under 25. They must still pay the same levels of national insurance contributions, tax, council tax and mortgage payments. But when it comes to their payments from the benefits system, the Government immediately make a cut in their income because of their age.
  A person aged between 18 and 24 who has a partner working full time will have a 60 per cent. cut in benefit, and will lose £1,457 simply because of his age. Again, that is despite the fact that he pays the same level of
  406
  contributions as people over 24. A 25-year-old with a partner working full time will lose 50 per cent. of his income, or £1,205. Someone aged 25 or over with £8,000 of savings—which can include, of course, any redundancy payments—and a non-working partner will lose 70 per cent. of his benefit, or £2,694.
  The House should look at those figures alongside the Government's support for Mr. Wallis and his one day a week job which gives him extra spending money of £17,000 a year. It is no wonder that we ask about double standards in public life, and about the hypocrisy, mean-mindedness and tight-fistedness of the Government. The Government are blatantly cutting the benefit of the unemployed and kicking them in the teeth. They are asking the unemployed to pay the price of the Government's failed economic policies.
  Ms Lynne: Would the Labour party reverse those cuts? I asked that question before, but I did not get a satisfactory reply.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Lady and her party had bothered to serve for eight weeks on Committee, she would have had an answer to that question, and a lot of other answers as well. The Labour party has consistently tabled amendments and new clauses to defend the status quo and to try to challenge and defeat the Government on the Bill. The next two days of discussion on the Bill will be about the clear proposals from the Labour party to defend the rights of the unemployed. We cannot make our position any clearer. We have not spent the last eight weeks of our lives in Committee—without the support of a single Liberal Democrat—defending the rights of the unemployed, to come here and have a silly smart Alec question about what we will do at the next election.
  We are desperate for the Government to announce a general election so that we can put our new proposals on the minimum wage and other issues before the British public. With every day that goes by without a general election, more people are ending up in poverty and unemployment, and more people are being exploited in the work place because of low wages. If the Government are really serious about the Labour party's position on policy issues, they should give us a general election.
  I understand that right hon. Members in the Cabinet set themselves up a little sub-committee to look after Government gaffes. Their first mistake was to put the chairman of the Conservative party in charge of the gaffe committee.
  The Government would seem to have no intention—either before the passage of the Bill or slightly after—of allowing us to put the issues to the British public. But they cannot run away for ever, and we await the day when we can put some different proposals to the public, not only on the minimum wage but on recreating a welfare state which takes people out of poverty and into work and which gives people access to a range of issues which the Government currently deny them.
  Mr. Heald: Getting back to the amendment, what would be the
  "minimum prescribed amount of remuneration."?
  Mr. McCartney: The Government have three choices, and each time we asked the Government about them they

  407
  failed to respond. The Government can—by regulation—say that the minimum would be a person's current unemployment benefit level, his current income support level or his current jobseeker's allowance level. We have asked questions about that, as the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) knows. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee, and that is why I was prepared to give way to him.
  We asked the Minister of State, who was so eager that she answered before I could get the question out. She said that there would be no level in respect of the protection of an individual in relation to the minimum level of salary which can be given in an offer of employment. Therefore, the three options available to the Government could offer protection for the unemployed going back to the work place.
  Mr. Heald: Which option would the hon. Gentleman choose?
  Mr. McCartney: If I were the Minister, I would not be putting the unemployed in the position in which the Government are putting them. No Labour Minister would force people into employment at wages of less than £1 an hour or take away their right to benefit. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North's support of the Government's proposals in Committee has been shameful.
  Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, when asked about that very matter, said that the correct answer to question 18 of the jobsearch plan is the level of wages a person was earning in his last job?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right, and when we challenged the Government on that, no answer was given.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that no answer was given when I was challenged. I gave the Committee a full explanation of what happened. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as will the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), what happened that night. There was a great deal of yah-boo stuff coming from the Opposition Benches. There was chaos. One could hear the chaos several miles off. My hon. Friend was not allowed to complete his sentence. Far from being confused, had he been allowed to finish he would have said that the amount was someone's last salary within the permitted period. The hon. Gentleman was given that explanation in Committee.
  Mr. McCartney: The Minister is absolutely consistent in the excuses that she gives for the mistake either by herself or by the Under-Secretary, her hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). The fact is that the Government got themselves into a mess on that occasion. If I remember rightly, for her trial and tribulation in trying to trip around her hon. Friend's terrible error, we gave the Minister a Gotcha award on behalf of the rest of the Committee.
  Ms Eagle: When my hon. Friend read the Hansard record of the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment did he notice the full stop at the end of the sentence?
  Mr. McCartney: I do not want to discomfit the Minister any further. It is a difficult position when a Minister prays in aid a full stop or comma in respect of
  408
  Government policy, but there we are. The Minister is right. She gave an explanation in Committee, but the problem was that all the members of the Committee laughed their heads off and we did not hear it all.
  The Labour members of the Committee found the Government's position on this matter unacceptable. Through their labour market policies, the Government are trying to price the unemployed into low-paid work by denying them benefit. The unemployed have two choices, neither of which is acceptable. The choices are exploitation or the dole. The Government's proposals for JSA offer a simple choice.
  Question 18 of the draft agreement on the jobsearch plan asks the claimant:
  "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
  There are even boxes in which to put the lowest hourly, weekly, monthly and annual wage rate. I do not think that Mr. Ed Wallis of PowerGen will be filling in the form, but it would be interesting if he did.
  Ms Harriet Harman: The box is not big enough for all the noughts.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right.
  The Government's proposals for the jobseeker's agreement are different from what happened under unemployment benefit. JSA is not a daily benefit but a weekly benefit. In the jobseeker's agreement people have to sign up in advance for seven days a week at a minimum of 40 hours. If that is calculated in relation to the level of the jobseeker's allowance, it equates to about £1 an hour. The Government are giving a green light to poor employers in local markets to offer employment opportunities with pay at or around jobseeker's allowance rates. They will do so in the sure and certain knowledge that the Minister will offer up large numbers of unemployed people who will either have to take the job or lose their right to benefit.
  Unemployed people will be criminalised. They can be fined and fined again. They have nil choice. It is either to have no income or to take the exploitative job. That is why the Government have made this proposal. It is a cowardly attempt further to manipulate local labour markets not by investing in quality training and job opportunities but simply by driving down pay to the lowest possible level.
  Our position is in stark contrast to the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Amber Valley. This is the hon. Gentleman who got the Minister into trouble in Committee. In a letter to the Financial Times on 23 December last, he stated that £2.70 was an extremely low level of pay. He can write that in the Financial Times, but as a Minister in the Department of Employment he backs the Government to the hilt when they are prepared to introduce the jobseeker's agreement and force people to work for not half but almost a third of that.
  What is the Government's position? If £2.70 is extremely low, would the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North support it, given that that is the position of an Employment Minister? People could legitimately say that offers of less than that could leave them considerably worse off. The Government should respond to that. Is that Government policy? Did the hon. Member for Amber Valley declare the Government's position on the minimum level of wages in the economy?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way a second time. He quoted earlier the view of The Guardian on the minimum wage. While I have not read that article, I have read reports by the OECD which say that the single common cause for high unemployment levels in France and the Club Med countries is a minimum working wage. So what is the hon. Gentleman's policy and what is his response to the OECD, if not to The Guardian?
  Mr. McCartney: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. This is not a complaint. The article that I quoted from The Guardian was not about the minimum wage. It was about Mr. Wallis's personal position in relation to his minimum wage. As for the OECD, the report did not say what the hon. Gentleman said it said. The Government interpret it in the same way as they do the ILO report. Those reports make it clear that the Government's position is unsustainable in terms of the market.
  The ILO report, which is less than a month old, has made it clear that the position of this and other Governments who promote free market policies to the extent of poverty pay is driving their economies in the wrong direction. In the long run, that will damage the economy as a whole. Academic research has also shown that, in countries that have a minimum wage, there is no net loss of employment opportunities. The Government have not been able to prove their case.
  Does the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire believe that the Under-Secretary was correct? Does he believe that £2.70 is the level that the Government should choose in respect of the jobseeker's allowance? Does he think that that is a fair level? Does he think that that should be the floor?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am concerned that people should have jobs. It is pointless to set a minimum working wage if it creates unemployment. Would the hon. Gentleman's party welcome the creation of unemployment?
  Mr. McCartney: We are the only country in Europe that does not have statutory pay protection. Ours is the only country out of 100 ILO signatories that is opposed to providing minimum pay protection for its work force. The bulk of empirical evidence shows that the impact of minimum wages on unemployment is insignificant. That evidence comes from studies by the ILO on the minimum wage throughout the world. The Government do not have a case for opposing the minimum wage. They are opposed to people having fair standards, wages and conditions of work. The Government have set their face against that.
  It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire did not support the Under-Secretary's view. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister of State supports the Under-Secretary. The excuse that she gave in Committee—that the hon. Gentleman was shouted down by yah-boos—does not stand up. He wrote the letter in the closeted, quiet atmosphere of the Department of Employment and sent it off after due consideration. The Minister can give no excuse for what her hon. Friend believed about extremely low levels of pay.
  The Government have every intention of taking wage levels in Britain to the lowest possible point, regardless of the social and economic consequences. They have no desire to see any wage protection for workers in Britain. It suits the Government to have high levels of
  410
  unemployment because they create a market in which unscrupulous employers can call the tune. There is a trough for the wealthy fat cats to eat and gorge themselves in and for millions there is a trough of despair. That is what the Government's policies offer.
  A national minimum wage would get people back to work, off benefits and out of the poverty trap. It beggars belief, but, as we approach a new millennium, earnings inequality in the United Kingdom economy is greater than at any time since 1866. For the bottom quarter of wage earners, earnings fell in comparison with average pay by 10 per cent. The earnings of the upper 25 per cent. rose by 11 per cent. The earnings of the top 10 per cent. of earners have risen by a staggering 50 per cent. Wages councils for 4.5 million people were abolished by the Government in 1993–94.
  Mr. Heald: I am still trying to find out what the minimum prescribed amount of remuneration is. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it will be equal to the statutory minimum wage that the Labour party would introduce as an incoming Government? If so, is he talking about £4.05 an hour for 40 hours a week—£160 a week—as the minimum amount that would entitle a claimant to refuse a job?
  Mr. McCartney: During the eight weeks in Committee, I know that the hon. Gentleman found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that he was in the Committee to defend the Government's position and that we were debating a Government Bill.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): This is an Opposition amendment.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. McCartney: The Secretary of State must contain himself a moment longer. The position is this. The Government have four choices on this amendment and I will repeat them: employment benefit level, income support level, jobseeker's allowance level and the £2.70 suggested by the Under-Secretary in the Financial Times. I have given the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North four choices. Given that the Bill will be law before the next general election, if he wants a debate in the general election campaign about the minimum wage and any changes that an incoming Labour Government would make to social security, I shall be delighted to come to his constituency to help remove him. I have no problems with that.
  As regards the Bill and what happens if it becomes law this summer, the Government must make choices and so far they have chosen to offer people £1 an hour or less. The amendment gives them four opportunities. I will make it easy for the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North. Which opportunity does he choose? Which one would he agree with? I see that he is smiling, but he will need to do better than that—he cannot buy food with a smile. What choice will he make? I will give him four opportunities—one out of four, two out of four, what is it to be? What is his choice?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity. The choice that he is offering is totally bogus because the potential law that we spent eight weeks debating does not make choices of that sort. It says that it is up to the claimant to show good

  411
  cause, and he knows that. Will he finally answer the question and say that the minimum prescribed amount of remuneration would be the same as Labour's figure for a statutory minimum wage—that is, £4 an hour?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has surpassed himself as he has given us a fifth choice, which is no floor. The position is clear—the Government are not prepared to defend people from having to accept £1 or £1.50 an hour, or less. Theirs is a total zero position.
  Miss Widdecombe: This is an Opposition amendment and presumably its purpose is to make clear what they want in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman consistently refused to make it clear throughout the Committee and the beginnings of this debate. What does he want us to do and what is his choice of the five, six, seven or eight options? Will he specify that figure in that box?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady is being rather disingenuous with me. During the passage of the Bill, I gave her the options. From the moment that she got out of the trap and made it clear that there would be a zero rate for the unemployed and that the sky is the limit for the public utility bosses, she has had opportunities. In this debate, I have given her a fourth opportunity to agree with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Amber Valley. I would call it a draw if I got anything out of this debate that improved the situation for the unemployed from zero. I give the hon. Lady another opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to support her hon. Friend's assertion in the Financial Times. Does she agree that that should be the minimum floor?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has not suggested a minimum floor as regards the Bill. All I want to hear from the hon. Gentleman is the figure—whether for an unemployed agricultural worker or an unemployed ex-boss of a public utility—that he wants in that box under the Bill. What is he asking for?
  Mr. McCartney: I am going to have to give the hon. Lady a lesson about her own Bill. An unemployed ex-head of a public utility would not qualify because of his capital resources—he would probably retire with about £2 billion of taxpayers' money in the bank, so the question does not apply.
  The Minister cannot use the excuse that the Under-Secretary has been misquoted. He took the opportunity, in his own time, to submit the letter to the Financial Times. She either agrees with him or she does not. I will repeat his remarks. On 23 December last, he stated that £2.70 is an extremely low level. That is the position of her junior Minister. That being the case, how can the Government accept a zero position in the Bill for the unemployed? It is clear that the hon. Lady—
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition to table an amendment and for no guidance to be given in the speech for the Opposition about the essential point—what the prescribed minimum amount of remuneration should be? If I may give an example—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not bother to give an example because it is not a point of order and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is responsible for his speech.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North should know better than to challenge the Chair as it was obviously in order or we would not have been debating it. I should have thought that he would have learnt his lesson, as he got himself into hot water on more than one occasion in Committee with similar points. He is using yet another tactic, but he has failed to answer.
  The Government are extremely embarrassed. They never expected that from the young boy Minister—he is the only Minister who went straight from a youth training scheme to be a Minister and he is the only person I know of who qualified and got a job out of the scheme. The "young Minister", as he was described in the last Employment questions, has put it on record—I assume that he is speaking for the Department as he is not speaking on his own—on behalf of the Government and of the Department, that he believes that £2.70 is an extremely low level. Opposition Members would all say, "Hear, hear."
  What we find interesting is that, during the passage of the Bill, it has been obvious that the Minister of State believes that a zero rate or £1 an hour is not too low. There is a difference of about 66 per cent. between the hon. Lady and the Under-Secretary. I do not want to labour the point too much, but it is a further sign of Government confusion over minimum wages and standards at work. I see that the Philadelphia lawyer is coming to the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Roger Evans: The question that I want an answer to is this—the hon. Gentleman may not want to give a figure, but he used the phrase
  "a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration"
  in amendment No. 1. Is that the same figure as Labour's minimum wage? If it is, could he tell us, and if it is not, could he explain it?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman must do better than that. I know that he can convince juries at the Old Bailey with his arguments, but that was a bit threadbare. We state clearly that there should be designation in regulations—[Interruption.] I cannot make it any clearer. Through the amendment, we are trying to ensure that there is a floor, so that an unemployed person can be defended against exploitation.
  This Bill will be law before the next general election, when the Labour party will put forward its position on the minimum wage and a range of other issues. The Bill is a stop-gap between this and an incoming Labour Government, which there will undoubtedly be—we will get rid of the whole damn shower of them. The position is clear.
  Does the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North think that the Under-Secretary was right about £2.70 an hour? Does he think that he has put the Government's position? If so, we will call it a draw and we will accept that and

  413
  designate it in the regulations. At least that would be better than what the Minister of State is saying—£1 an hour or nothing.
  Mr. Evans: Do I take it from that evasion that, if there ever were a Labour Government, the figure that he is proposing for the minimum prescribed remuneration would be Labour's minimum wage?
  Mr. McCartney: The Under-Secretary thinks that he is at the Old Bailey again. He seems to be rather troubled by the judge in this matter.
  Mr. Heald: Answer yes or no.
  Mr. McCartney: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about yes or no. The Government must defend the Bill which, unamended, provides for a zero rate. Unemployed people can lose their right to benefit if they do not accept a job that pays £1 an hour or less. We have offered four options in that respect. I ask Tory Members again whether they would accept: a minimum level of unemployment benefit; income support; jobseeker's allowance; or the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment of £2.70 an hour? For God's sake make up your mind and pick one of those four options before tens of thousands of unemployed people lose their right to benefit or are forced into skivvy jobs that leave them in in-work poverty at the end of the week.
  In-work poverty affects millions of people. It is interesting to note that Tory Members have lost, within the confines of Government, the argument on the minimum wage. The Secretary of State for Employment is not here because he cannot take the embarrassment. The Minister of State and her hon. Friends wanted to get rid of the agricultural wages boards, which are the only statutory minimum pay boards left in Britain. They had to hold a public consultation on the matter and discovered that employers, employees and farming communities wanted to keep a minimum wage and minimum standards to protect their community from the onset of further poverty and to defend their local economies and local companies. The Secretary of State for Employment had to swallow that decision in Cabinet and his position was overturned.
  So, the first time that public opinion was tested—it will probably be the only occasion between now and a general election—on the issue of a national minimum wage, the Government were defeated and had to climb down. I welcome the fact that a national minimum wage for agricultural workers is still protected. Tory Members have had to accept the principle and concept of a minimum wage, and the agricultural wages boards will continue to operate.
  I wait to see whether the Minister will attempt tonight, by the back door or other means, to undermine the decision to continue the agricultural wages boards. May I put another question to her in respect of the jobseeker's agreement? In areas where agricultural wages board rates apply, what will be the position under the jobseeker's agreement of somebody who says, "I'm not prepared to accept a job below that rate."? The local labour market will have a floor agreed by the Government, as the agricultural wages board sets a statutory minimum floor in the local agricultural economy. What is the position of unemployed people in those areas? Will they be allowed,
  414
  under the JSA, to insist that they will not accept wages below the level that the Government set under the agricultural wages board?
  The Government were not in power when our right hon. Friend, Barbara Castle, put equal pay legislation on the statute book. The Tories screamed that millions of people would be made unemployed, industry would be laid to waste and destroyed, and the only casualty would be women. That has been proved to be a fallacy because women play an increasing part in the work force. The problem is that the equal pay legislation needs a little assistance because of the direct effect on low pay of the Government's market policies. Our proposals on a minimum wage will ensure that women have their rightful opportunity in the marketplace to take home a living wage.
  The Labour party is proud to support a minimum wage policy and, during the run-up to the next general election, we shall increasingly promote and put forward that proposal effectively.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: On low pay, is my hon. Friend aware of the case in Coventry some months ago in which an individual was paid £1 an hour? When we took the matter up with the Secretary of State for Employment, the individual was told that he should claim benefits. The Government are thus protecting employers while abusing taxpayers by using taxpayers' money to subsidise bad employers.
  Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady need not shake her head. If she wants a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State for Employment, I shall willingly send her one. That is the racket which the Government are perpetrating.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are using in-work benefits not to lift people out of absolute poverty but to subsidise employers who are maintaining people in poverty. Not only do employers receive that incentive to pay poverty wages but, through the taxation system, they have huge tax rake-offs for their private income and capital at the expense of the low-paid. So it is a double whammy: if people work for a bad employer, the bad employer receives a subsidy to keep them on low pay, while his profits and personal income are hardly taxed at all. The vast majority of working people face a 7p in the pound tax rise, which is the highest tax hike in history. The Government have the worst record on tax of any Government ever, anywhere and at any time. They not only lie about taxation but pile it on as quickly as they can, especially on low-paid, middle-income and ordinary people.
  Without a pay floor in the economy, low pay damages our economic prospects. It dampens consumer activity; leads to a high turnover of staff; weakens investment in training; and creates insufficient production by employers, who drive down wages to cut costs instead of improving investment in modern equipment and production methods. A statutory minimum wage would provide a floor to stop unfair exploitation. It would stop bad employers and corporate individuals having the subsidies that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) described a few moments ago.

  415
  Only in the two-nation Britain created by today's Tories can a massive taxpayers' subsidy to low-wage firms be considered sensible economics. If the Minister does not want to listen to me and to my hon. Friends, perhaps she will listen to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who clearly stated that there was general agreement within the Cabinet on the need for the agricultural wages boards and that a minimum wage in farming should be applied because it was fair. He said that it did not cost jobs and that both employers and employees wanted to keep it. If that is the hon. Gentleman's position, it is time that the hon. Lady gave up her bile and prejudice against low-paid workers and gave unemployed people a fair crack of the whip and an opportunity for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  Ms Rachel Squire: I totally support the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  What has angered me most in Committee and in successive debates and Question Times in the House is how the Government and Tory Members preach about creating jobs and attack a minimum wage, when their party is full of people who have several jobs and think that the salary that they receive to serve in this place is insufficient. At the same time, they expect millions of people to live on poverty wages and accept any job, however low paid, that is offered to them. Tory Members are good at preaching about people who are workshy, but would they consider taking a job that paid £2.70 an hour or less?
  The Government's employment policy and the Bill are all about creating a skivvy economy where hundreds of thousands of jobs are low paid and short term, while a few thousand people—like some retired Tory Ministers and the chairmen of the privatised public utilities—rake in up to £150,000 a year for just one day's work a week.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already mentioned the evidence that was given yesterday to the Select Committee on Employment. Another fact that particularly angered me and should anger every hon. Member was the news that Michael Bett, the chairman of the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body that recommended the paltry, insulting increase of 1 per cent. to the thousands of people who devote their lives to caring for the population, has been offered £57,000 a year for a three-day week. If the Government are willing to offer that kind of remuneration to the thousands of my constituents who are unemployed, I am sure that they would be more than happy to accept it. If the Government want to tackle unemployment, perhaps they should limit the number of jobs that any one person can do, because it seems that just a few hundred people grab every job that is going.
  The Bill, if it is unamended, will force people to accept wages of £2.70 an hour or less; otherwise their benefits will be stopped. Just in case anyone thinks that the Opposition are exaggerating about jobs that pay less than £2.70 an hour, let me quote three examples from my part of the world.
  First, there was the recent case in the Strathclyde area of a taxi office controller, working a 54-hour week for £1.48 an hour. If that person became unemployed, would he really be expected to be willing to work for even less? The second case is that of a qualified hairdresser in the
  416
  Fife area, whose take-home pay is £68. She and her partner would be better off living on income support, because they would then receive the great sum of £71.70 a week. I came across the third example of low pay when I opened my local jobcentre in Dunfermline in July—a week before the Government confirmed the closure of Rosyth naval base, which has put thousands more out of work. A security guard's job was advertised, which required the man or woman to make their own transport available and offered between £1.80 and £2 an hour.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: The hon. Lady has cited examples of people on low wages, but is it not fair to say that they are entitled to family income supplement, which increases their income considerably?
  Ms Squire: As far as I am aware, family income supplement disappeared some years ago and we now have family credit or income support. Because of the complexity and maze of rules concerning family credit and income support, many people on low wages are not entitled to either benefit.
  The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) leads me on to quote another example of a constituent who came to see me at my surgery at the weekend. He has worked for 29 years at Rosyth dockyard and is to be made compulsorily redundant. He has discovered that, first, because he is 55 years of age, he is not entitled, under current legislation, to unemployment benefit, even though he has paid all his life in the expectation that such benefit would be available to him. Secondly, he will not be eligible for income support because he will receive a pension of £79 a week. That is what he is expected to live on.
  Some other Ministry of Defence Rosyth employees, who also face the prospect of redundancy, came to see me yesterday. They told me how shocked they were by the low level of income that people are required to live on.
  In Scotland alone, 83,000 people earn less than £2.50 an hour and 24,000 people already earn less than £1.50 an hour. That is the type of wage for which people are expected to work. They are expected to accept such low-paid jobs or face the risk of losing benefit.
  The Opposition have made it clear that we want to promote decency and decent pay and conditions for those who are in work and then, unfortunately, find themselves out of work. That is why we believe that it is only just that we should amend the Bill, so that men or women can refuse to work for poverty pay without having their benefits stopped.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already mentioned that, under the Government, the gap between the highest and lowest-paid workers is greater than it has ever been since records began in 1886. The bottom 10 per cent. of full-time workers earn on average about one third of that earned by the top 10 per cent. In 1992, the richest 20 per cent. of the population had net income five times as great as the poorest 10 per cent. That disparity will have grown even larger in the intervening years. It seems that the Government are in favour of low pay, but we are not.
  The Government claim that the unemployment rate is falling. I would argue that that is happening not because they have created decently paid jobs, but because they have encouraged low-paid and frequently part-time work. In the past 16 years, I have, time and again, seen jobs that

  417
  once employed someone for between 30 and 40 hours a week split into three or four part-time jobs, which have left people with few if any employment rights and low pay. Since 1938—I mean 1978; it just feels like 1938 sometimes—the number of part-time jobs has risen by 32 per cent. while the number of full-time ones has dropped by about 13 per cent. In Scotland, the number of part-time jobs has gone up by 9,900, but the price we have paid is the loss of 7,600 full-time ones. One must question the reality of job creation.
  In my part of Scotland, Fife region already has the highest unemployment rate of Scotland at 11.2 per cent., while one of my district council electoral wards is already approaching an unemployment rate of 20.7 per cent. The Bill will bring no hope to those unemployed people.
  Low pay puts a burden on the taxpayer because the profits of low-paying employers are subsidised through family credit. I believe that the system of tackling wage poverty by top-up benefits is economically inefficient.
  I shall now mention some of the arguments that have been made about a minimum wage. First, it has been argued that it will lead to job loss. There is little real evidence to demonstrate that. Before the previous general election, the independent organisation Industrial Relations Services carried out a survey of 527 firms, asking them what they would think of a minimum wage set at half average earnings. Nearly two thirds of those questioned said that it would not increase the organisation's pay bill, and a further 30 per cent. said that it would add less than 5 per cent. to the pay bill. Following the abolition of wages councils, we have not witnessed a growth in the very low-paid sector of employment, but jobs have been lost—notably, as many as 27,000 in the hotel and catering sector—and even lower wages have been paid.
  8 pm
  I remind Conservative Members that although minimum wages have little impact on employment, they affect the economy. Let me again take Scotland as an example, where 220,000 workers used to be covered by wages councils. Every 10p decrease in their wage levels since the abolition of wages councils will lose the Scottish economy £30 million. That policy damages the economy.
  A second argument about the minimum wage is that it will lead to inflation and that the higher-paid will seek to maintain a differential. The Government should preach to those fat cats in the privatised utilities about seeking to maintain differentials, because they are the ones who constantly demand massive pay increases.
  There is little evidence to show that maintaining differentials will affect the economy. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry has estimated that a minimum wage set at half average earnings may add only 1.2 per cent. to the nation's wage bill.
  The third argument that has been used against a minimum wage is that it will affect Britain's international competitiveness. Do the Government really suggest that we should adopt the employment practices of some countries in other parts of the world, where there continue
  418
  to be children in full-time employment, where children work down mines and where workers are paid as little as 50p an hour?
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady now tell us when any member of the Government has suggested any of those things? [Interruption.]
  Ms Squire: It seems that the jobseeker's agreement and the Jobseekers Bill suggest that there is no problem with people working for as little as 50p an hour. That sort of level of pay puts pressure on families to suggest that their children and young people should find any job, however poorly paid.
  Miss Widdecombe: But the hon. Lady mentioned a number of horrors, including child labour. Where does that come into the Bill?
  Ms Squire: I am saying to the hon. Lady that she has refused to set a level below which she thinks that it will be unreasonable for anyone of any age to work, and that that appears to me to be imitating the employment practices which, tragically and unjustly, continue to exist in other parts of the world where children continue to be engaged in horrific manual labour and wages are as little as 50p an hour.
  Mr. McCartney: It is a fact—the Minister of State knows it, and she has been disingenuous not to admit it in the debate—that, under the young person's jobseeker's agreement, if the Minister carries a set of proposals that the Government will set out after the Bill is passed, young people coming out of care will lose the right to any form of income. Those are young people, newly out of care. The truth is that the Government are attacking, and will tomorrow attack, the very young people whom the Minister of State says that she will defend.
  Ms Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for those excellent arguments.
  When the Government are considering ways in which to create decently paid employment, they should consider the fact that good companies do not make investment decisions based solely on labour costs; they consider other aspects to be important, such as a highly skilled and motivated work force, an efficient transport and communications network and good research and development. Those can be far more effective than low pay in attracting inward investment and helping to create jobs.
  If the Government are serious about reducing unemployment, they should also alter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, their education and training policies, especially as reflected in the contents of the Bill. The Government should eliminate the contradictions created by existing rules rather than set up other barriers.
  In conclusion, I hope, albeit faintly, that the Government will support the amendments. It appears that their employment strategy is designed simply to move people from unwaged poverty into waged poverty. That merely exchanges one set of problems for another.
  Pay is probably the clearest signal that we give of the value and worth that is placed on a person's work. Without a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration, contained in our amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the only

  419
  message that the Government will give to unemployed people, whatever their circumstances, is that they are of little or no value and little or no worth.
  When I was considering what to say today, and flicking through some of my notes, I came across a quotation that very much describes what the Government are about. It is by someone called Thomas Paine who, I know, will be familiar, at least to Opposition Members. He said, more than 200 years ago:
  "It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the public taxes of any country, for the support of any individual, while thousands who are forced to contribute thereto are pining with want and struggling with misery.
  "Government does not consist in a contrast between prisons and palaces, between poverty and pomp.
  It is not instituted to rob the needy of his mite, and increase the wretchedness of the wretched.
  There never did, there never will and there never can exist a parliament possessed of the right of commanding forever how the world shall be governed. I am"—
  we are—
  "contending for the rights of the living."
  That means that we support a minimum wage.
  Mr. Heald: I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). Starting with her quotation from Thomas Paine, I wonder whether she is prepared to accept that, 200 years ago, he was talking about a country with the workhouse and with the justices in charge of local government—a very different society, in which one could be hanged for stealing potatoes. Is the hon. Lady seriously saying that we live in such a society today?
  Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: I am happy to give way, although somewhat earlier than usual.
  Ms Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I could not contain myself.
  Will the hon. Gentleman admit that, 200 years ago, when Thomas Paine was writing, so was Adam Smith? The Conservative party appears to be fixated on the writings of that economist.
  Mr. Roger Evans: He was right.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and that sedentary intervention indicates that Adam Smith was right. However, I think that the hon. Lady should agree, although I am sure that she would not, that a sense of balance is needed in those things.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Reading!
  Mr. Heald: I am not reading.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West gave us that sense of balance. She discussed the problems of unemployment in her constituency without mentioning that, in the past year, unemployment has decreased in her constituency by 10.4 per cent. The figures that she took would have suggested that the position throughout Scotland was becoming worse rather than better. In the past year, in Scotland, unemployment has decreased by 11.2 per cent. Twenty-eight thousand
  420
  people net in Scotland this year are back in work. That is good news. The Scottish economy is improving—the hon. Lady knows that better than me.
  The idea that we are discussing the subject against a background of worsening unemployment and no opportunities for young people is wrong. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made a similar point, but unemployment in his constituency is down by more than 10 per cent. The level of unemployment in his constituency is 8.5 per cent., having gone down by almost 18 per cent. in the past year. Can he seriously argue that unemployment is getting worse, which is something that he said in one of his contributions?
  Mr. McCartney: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not unemployment that is going down, but the claiming count. The hon. Gentleman should add to the claiming count the 2.4 million people who are economically inactive. The Government do not include them in the count; if they did, they would find that there are about 5 million people in Britain still looking for jobs and desperate for work. The Government are preventing them from working.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which shows no sense of balance. As the hon. Gentleman would know if he had researched the matter—I think that he does know—the International Labour Organisation's figures, which have been described by the Trades Union Congress as utterly reliable, show almost exactly the same unemployment figures as the Government's own departmental figures.
  What is more, is the hon. Gentleman really saying—I know that he cannot be—that the Labour party, in the unlikely event of its coming into government, would add those economically inactive people to the count? Of course a Labour Government would not. That would provide an inaccurate figure that would not reflect the true circumstances in this country. The ILO measure is different from the Government's measure in its formula, but the result is almost exactly the same: 2.4 million people are currently unemployed. The figure is too high, but it is falling fast.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said that most of the jobs that have come on stream over the past year are part time. Not only is that inaccurate, but she should not forget that the people who are taking part-time work want part-time work. The Department of Employment survey of part-time workers showed that only 14 per cent. of them wanted full-time work.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: I shall be happy to give way when I have finished my point.
  If we consider full-time workers, as the survey did, we see that about one third of them would like to work part time. To suggest that people are being forced into part-time work is wholly inaccurate. Is it not about time that the Labour party started to address the serious issues on the basis of the facts?
  Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heald: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, as I promised, and then to my hon. Friend.
  Ms Squire: I certainly agree that there are people—the majority of them are women with family responsibilities—who look for part-time work. But they are looking for part-time work, not poverty wages, which is what they are frequently offered. I was also saying that full-time jobs are being replaced by low-paid, part-time work. If one talks to skilled engineering workers from dockyards and elsewhere, one finds that they are looking for full-time, not part-time, employment.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. What people who are looking for work want is a job. All the evidence shows that if we were to introduce a guaranteed minimum wage—something for which she has argued—we would lose rather than gain jobs. Who is she to tell people what sort of jobs they should accept?
  Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: I must finish my point, and I have also promised my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) that I will give way to him next.
  Who are any of us to tell people what jobs they should take? Who are we to say that someone should not have taken that job, but another? That is nonsense. Each individual's circumstances are different. A particular worker may want to take a specific job for his or her own reasons.
  Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware—from what he has said to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) I think that perhaps he is—that thousands and thousands of people, particularly women, treat part-time jobs as freedom from the drudgery of the workplace at home? Is not the part-time job an expression of freedom—something that the Opposition are always prating about?
  Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way.
  The huge increase in women in work since 1984 is something of which this country should be proud because those women who wanted to work now have the opportunity to do so, and do so in large numbers. It is true that one of the reasons for the increase in part-time work is that many women want part-time work. There is no reason why they should not want it. It may fit in with their responsibilities to their children. Some men may like part-time work so that they can give a hand in the home as well. We in this place should support women who want to go out to work and take pride in the fact that they have been given that opportunity. We should not always try to knock them down, undercut them and say that they should not have taken a particular job and were silly to do so.
  8.15 pm
  Ms Eagle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the recommendations of the Select Committee on Employment on mothers in employment, as he has just given a paean of praise to women in the work force. He asked, "Who are we to tell somebody what job to take?" Does he agree that that is what the Bill is all about? It is about telling people to take particular jobs on low wages
  422
  or have their benefit denied. Who is he to make a point like that when it is the very point of the appalling legislation?
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Lady makes my point for me. I am asking how we can say to someone who has taken a job that he or she should not have taken a particular job. I think that I made that point clearly. It is different if someone is paying a jobseeker's allowance, as the taxpayer is, or will be. The taxpayer is entitled to have his or her position protected, which is exactly what the Bill does.
  It is not presumptuous to tell someone receiving the benefits of the taxpayer—we are the taxpayer's protectors—how we believe a proper, structured approach should be taken to job seeking. It is not presumptuous for us to say, "This is the advice that we are giving you and the agreement that we would like to make." If the person is not prepared to accept the terms on offer or suggested by the employment officer, the adjudication officer decides. If that is still not acceptable to the claimant, the matter can be sent to the social security appeal tribunal, which consists of the employer's representative, the employee's representative and a lawyer. There are further rights of appeal in the event that the appeal tribunal does not deal with the issue properly. The hon. Lady cannot say that the taxpayer's interests are being dealt with in anything other than a proper way.
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be reasonable. He talks about protecting the taxpayer's interests. Does he have something to say about the interests of the taxpayer who is currently subsidising low-paying employers to the tune of £1 billion a year—twice as much of the taxpayer's money as the Bill attempts to save with its vicious cuts? Why is there not some protection for the taxpayer on that side of the equation as well as the other side?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but time is short—it would be an extremely interesting argument to get into.
  Miss Widdecombe: When my hon. Friend heard the intervention of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), did it not sound to him extraordinarily as though she were proposing the abolition of family credit?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as that is precisely one of the points that I wanted to make. That is not the first time in the debate that we have heard that line peddled. The hon. Member for Makerfield decried family credit in his speech and said that it was a disgrace. I thought that we were finally about to hear a commitment from the Labour party. Is it Labour party policy to abolish family credit? That would be a bold proposal by new Labour. I do not suppose for a minute that we will receive a clear answer tonight when we did not get one during the weeks of consideration in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman had the absolute temerity to stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend that the Labour party had something to say about tax, when week after week in Committee he ducked and weaved in an attempt to avoid making the commitments that were the only logical consequence of the amendments that he tabled. The Opposition's amendment talks about a "minimum prescribed amount". Have Opposition Members said what that amount will be? Will it be the same figure as

  423
  Labour's guaranteed minimum wage? That does not help us much because the Opposition are not prepared to tell us what that figure is either.
  The Labour party is humbug from beginning to end. Labour Members make criticism after criticism week after week, but they are not prepared to say what they would spend or when they would spend it. We have seen examples of that approach again tonight.
  Unemployment in Britain is falling for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Government have put in place a structure which assists the jobseeker. The Bill builds on that structure and I believe that hon. Members should support it. The Opposition's amendment gives no information about what the Labour party would do—it does not even give the Government the benefit of the Opposition's advice on the issue. How on earth could anyone support it?
  Mr. Burden: I was pleased when the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) got to his feet and I was delighted when he began to speak. I hope that many people outside this place will read his remarks, because he has done the Labour party a great service.
  The hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about "forcing" people out of jobs. A central issue in the debate is whether it is reasonable for the Government to force people into jobs that pay poverty wages. Government Members must answer that question because it is their legislation. Even after a Second Reading debate and eight weeks of consideration in Committee, we have yet to hear what the Government consider to be a minimum reasonable rate of pay to expect people to work for without risking a deduction in benefit.
  Government Members may disagree on that point, so I intend to go to the top in respect of the legislation. The Minister of State made her position clear in Committee and it is important to put it on the record on Report. She said:
  "I have said until I am tired of saying it, that pay will not constitute a reason for refusing an offer of work. I know that that is not palatable to the Opposition. I have also said on record—it is already published in Hansard—that an unemployment adviser"—
  I thought that they were employment advisers—
  "would take into account all prevailing circumstances".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 February 1995; c. 521.]
  We examined the prevailing circumstances that the Minister had in mind. We were pleased to learn that she did not intend to cut the current list. Health considerations were a prevailing circumstance that could be taken into account generally—but not in respect of pay. Religious conviction, conscientious conviction and caring responsibilities could be taken into account—although the Minister did not mention the cost of caring. If travelling costs associated with a job were considered excessive, they could be taken into account, as could excessive travelling time. But there was no mention of pay. The Minister did not answer the key question: what level of wages is it reasonable to expect people to work for? Anything goes for the Minister and the Government.
  Are we trying to imagine problems that do not exist? Is there no problem with low rates of pay? Perhaps the problem existed once but it has now disappeared. The facts are that the problem does exist and that it is growing. Mention has been made in the debate of a survey
  424
  conducted by the Manchester Low Pay Unit which found that one third of jobs offered wages below the national insurance threshold.
  The Low Pay Network undertook a study entitled "After the Safety Net", based on a survey of 5,918 job vacancies at 128 jobcentres across the country. Of the 4,493 vacancies that gave a rate of pay, 36.5 per cent. paid less than they would have done if wages councils had still existed.
  We are not talking about highly paid jobs; we are talking about jobs in catering, hotels, shops, hairdressing salons and clothes manufacturing. We are talking about rates of pay that the wages councils said were unlawful. Under the wages councils, it was unlawful to pay people less than about £2.50 per hour. When the Government were busy abolishing the wages councils, we posed the question, "Do you condone the fact that many employers are paying less than wages council rates?" Government Members replied, "Of course we do not condone the law being broken." So the Government abolished the law and legalised pay rates that had been unlawful under the wages councils.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he mention the 15 per cent. fall in unemployment in his constituency in the past year? Does he intend to examine subsections (7) and (8) of clause 7, which make it perfectly clear that the terms of a jobseeker's agreement are subject to the test of reasonableness, with a right of appeal not only to the adjudication officer but to the social security appeals tribunals? In those circumstances, how can he make those points?
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency. I know precisely what the unemployment situation is in Birmingham. It does not give me any joy that one in five people in Birmingham are unemployed. About half that number have been unemployed for more than a year—that is higher than the national average—and about 30 per cent. of them have been unemployed for more than two years. One quarter of young people in Birmingham are unemployed. I think that that is a problem and I would not use that tragedy to try to score political points.
  The Government should be more concerned about doing something to address the unemployment problem and to create jobs. Government Members seek to blame the unemployed for their predicament. The unemployed are unemployed because there are no jobs, not because they are workshy. The community understands that and it is about time Government Members understood it as well.
  Of course, it is not just a question of overall rates of pay. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North mentioned the expansion of part-time work and job insecurity in Britain. That is part of the backcloth to the debate. He referred to the number of jobs that have allegedly been created. The fact is that an average of 270 full-time jobs have been lost every day since 1992. That is a net figure; it takes into account the number of jobs created as well as those that have been lost.
  It is true that there has been an expansion in part-time work. If people are unlucky enough to lose their job, there is a one-in-three chance that their next job will be part

  425
  time. If people move into part-time work, they are twice as likely to lose their job within a year. The average pay for a part-time job is—
  Ms Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for civil servants to brief Back-Bench Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is completely out of order.
  Mr. Heald: I apologise; the civil servants made that point to me.
  Mr. Burden: The average pay of part-time workers is 70 per cent. less than that of full-time workers and, on average, a part-time job is 50 per cent. shorter than a full-time job, so when Conservative Members talk about the expansion of part-time working as if it were a one-way street or something for which people were crying out, perhaps they should look at the reality of part-time work for so many of our citizens.
  Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who always gives way. Will he be as fair as he is wont to be? If he is to go through the parade of figures over the past few years, is it not right that he should point out that we have created 600,000 jobs in Britain in the past 18 months, when 2 million jobs have been lost in the rest of the European Union?
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand how many jobs have been lost every day since 1992, I shall give him the figure in a few more ways. Let us go back to 1990 rather than 1992: since 1990 the number of jobs lost per day has been 579, which equates to the loss of about 24 full-time jobs every hour for the past five years.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If, instead of comparing peaks and troughs, he looks at the matter over a complete economic cycle, will he admit that we have created 1.5 million jobs in Britain, a figure substantially higher than most of the rest of the industrialised world?
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Lady wants to look at a complete cycle, perhaps she should examine the level of unemployment in my constituency and others since the Conservative party came to power. She will see that the Government have destroyed many jobs.
  I am pleased that the Minister intervened as I was talking about job insecurity. The philosophy of job insecurity has been encouraged not just by the Government but by her Department.
  I received a letter from the hon. Lady today dated 19 March taking exception to the fact that, a week or two ago, I publicised the fact that an internal circular in her own Department—Employment Service personnel notice 5/95—was deliberately encouraging managers in the Employment Service to deprive temporary staff of their employment rights.
  I shall quote from that letter as the hon. Lady was obviously quite put out by what I said. She wrote:
  426
  "I can assure you that the aim of the document is not to deny temporary workers their employment rights. On the contrary the notice aims to reinforce the principles underlying the Civil Service Order in Council."
  Obviously that circular, which instructs managers to make sure that temporary members of staff are not employed for longer than 51 weeks, had nothing to do with depriving temporary workers of their employment rights. Perhaps it was totally misrepresenting the intentions of the Employment Service. Was it? I shall quote from that particular circular.
  Personnel notice 5/95 also encouraged managers to carry out employment checks on potential recruits to see whether they had worked for the Employment Service before. Why do managers have to carry out an employment check? There are various possible reasons. It could be for reference purposes. If somebody who had worked for the Employment Service before was a good member of staff, perhaps the service would want them back, but that is not why the circular urges managers to carry out employment checks. The reason is:
  "If it is not checked, we might later find that the individual has already worked for up to two years and might now be in the position of having enough service to qualify for a wide range of employment rights."
  There we have it in a nutshell: job insecurity, getting rid of employment rights and denying temporary workers employment rights is official Government policy. It is all linked together. Low pay, job insecurity and increasing casualisation of employment are all part of the Government's ideology. It is something to which we may object, and indeed we do. The Government may think that they can get away with that, but they might have some problems with this Bill under European law.
  It is by no means certain that the Bill, if enacted, will be lawful under European law. As far as I know, the Government and Britain are still bound, or consider that they should be bound, by the European convention on human rights.
  Article 4 of the European convention on human rights states:
  "No-one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
  The article also sets out some exceptions to that rule which allow work to be done by prisoners and the military in times of emergency and include
  "any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligation".
  The Commission has decided in a number of cases that, in order to give rise to a violation of that article, the work must be involuntary, done in order to avoid the menace of a penalty, be unjust or oppressive and cause the victim unavoidable hardship. So there we have it: a violation occurs if a job is taken under the menace of a penalty. That is precisely what the Jobseekers Bill seeks to impose. It seeks to force people into jobs under the menace of the penalty of having their benefit deducted. Benefit sanctions are absolutely at the core and the heart of the Bill.
  Tomorrow we shall debate new clause 6, which attempts to deal with another example of that compulsion or threat of penalty. Tomorrow we shall debate the Government's ambition to force young people to remain on training schemes even if the quality of the schemes is lousy and the Government are doing nothing for the young people. They are to be forced to stay on those schemes under the threat of removal of benefit.

  427
  The Bill is not only fatally flawed logically and blames the unemployed for their predicament but fails to create one single extra job to put people back into work. I am pleased to see the President of the Board of Trade—or the new leader of the Conservative party—coming into the Chamber.
  The Bill also perpetuates the state's and the taxpayer's subsidising of low pay. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) talk about how family credit can come into play to alleviate low pay. He is absolutely right; it does. It would be far better if employers who paid poverty wages were not subsidised by the taxpayer. There should be an obligation on employers to pay reasonable wages. It is not up to the taxpayer to subsidise poor employment practices, whether by private employers or by the Employment Service itself. In-work benefits cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds, as my hon. Friends have already said.
  The Bill is not only flawed logically; it could be flawed legally. The United Kingdom has been before the European Court of Human Rights 47 times and has suffered 23 losses in 16 years. The Government could be heading for another defeat in relation to the Bill. At best, the Bill shows ignorance of the plight of the unemployed. At worst, it shows the Government's determination to cover up their own failures, to blame the unemployed for that and, in an unlawful manner, to impose on the unemployed penalties for problems which they have not caused and for which they should not expect to stand the price.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I am conscious of the time and the wide range of the debate so far, but certain points need to be made about the minimum wage. The absence of a minimum wage certainly contributes to economic inefficiency. The history of the textile trade—which is close to the hearts of the people of west Yorkshire—in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was of an industry that tried to compete on wage levels with the far east, with the consequence that hundreds of companies went out of existence and 57,000 jobs were lost in west Yorkshire. The textile companies that survived, prospered and remain today invested in technology, machinery, equipment and human capital—in training people and enhancing their skills—to increase their companies' capacity.
  Low wages encourage the black economy. Anyone with experience of contract cleaning or contract packing companies knows that the names on the payrolls come from Disneyland. The vast majority of people working in those industries are colluding in a black economy, in which the employer does not pay national insurance contributions and employees often have alternative occupations.
  Low wages also set the poverty trap, because people in receipt of family credit and living in rented accommodation are liable to a 94 per cent. clawback of any increase in their income. A person earning £120 per week and receiving family credit must increase his wages to more than £200 before enjoying any benefit. The Government are considering extending family credit to childless couples, which will broaden the net of the poverty trap.
  During the passage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was the present
  428
  Under-Secretary's predecessor, took part in almost a Dutch auction in a debate on the abolition of wages councils, when it was said that a wage of £2.75 per hour, or £2 or £1.50, was acceptable. It was only when the figure reached 70p per hour that the right hon. Member for Stirling wavered. He did not say that was bad, but if the figure had dropped to 60p, he would probably have been on our side.
  Compare that with Home Office policy. Anyone in Britain with a spouse living abroad whom he seeks to bring into this country must have an income of £160 a week, and an additional £40 per week for each child involved. The Home Office requires a couple with two children to have an income of £240 per week. The right hon. Member for Stirling thought that an income of £28 a week for someone working 40 hours was acceptable. It is disgraceful that such policies operate. The Home Office supports the minimum wage, but the Department of Employment supports the opposite. A minimum wage brings dignity, economic prosperity and security to the employed, saves taxpayers' money and is economically efficient.
  Mr. Chisholm: Unfortunately, time is again short. The new clause attacks the heart of the Bill, which is why there is no possibility of the Government accepting it. The Bill's apparent purpose is to reduce public expenditure by attacking benefits for the unemployed, but its underlying reason is to drive people into low-paid employment and, by increasing the pool of people in such employment, to drive low wages even lower.
  Conservative Members get excited because figures are not quoted, but the principal question is whether there is to be a floor to wages. The Government have refused to put in a floor. The absence of one is bad for workers, bad for public finances, bad for demand in the economy, bad for economic efficiency and bad for jobs. We will take on the Conservatives over all the nonsense they talk about jobs being lost through a minimum wage. Many statistics prove how bad it is for workers not to have a wages floor, and I recommend that people read the new Labour party document published last week, which shows that 328,000 people earn less than £1.50 per hour for their work. Women are particularly badly affected. Three quarters of the 3 million people who earn below the national insurance threshold are women.
  8.45 pm
  The absence of a minimum wage is also bad for public finances. Conservatives make a fuss about our attitude to family credit. Of course it will not be abolished, but more of the strain should be taken by employers. The Conservatives are supposed to favour privatisation, so why do they not privatise family credit? That way, more would be paid by employers and less by the Government. That should appeal to the Government, because it would reduce public expenditure.
  If more people earned more at the bottom of the income scale, that would increase demand in the economy, which would, in turn, create more jobs. Low wages also cause high staff turnover, which serves as a disincentive to train. Why should employers train staff who will not stay with them long? Low pay is a substitute for training and for developing new processes and products. That was the point of Winston Churchill's famous quotation in support of a wages floor 90 years ago.

  429
  We will continue until the general election to challenge the assertion that a wages floor is bad for jobs. It is bad for jobs not to have one. At the last general election, the Government peddled their lies, and no doubt the same lies are all ready for the next general election. When that time comes, we will dissect and demolish those arguments. I do not have time tonight, but I can offer a foretaste.
  The Government assume that a minimum wage will bring changes at all income levels, but many studies have shown that segmentation of the labour market will not necessarily have knock-on effects for other wage levels. The methodology of some theoretical studies that say there will be job losses can be challenged. They merely add the amount of money necessary for a minimum wage as an increase in the average wages level and feed it into the computer, to produce job losses. If that were true, when equal pay legislation was enacted in the 1970s, there would have been declining employment; instead, there was a slight increase. Women's wages increased a little and more women were working.
  The same is true of the agricultural wages board. Even the Government accept that, and studies by the London School of Economics show that a minimum wage level had no effect on jobs. That applies equally to wages councils. The Library background paper refers to studies by the LSE and others that show that the existence of those councils did not hold back employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) told us what happened after the wages councils were abolished. There is evidence that there were fewer jobs-18,000 in retailing and catering in the period immediately following the abolition of wages councils. At the same time, wages fell—which was, of course, the purpose of the legislation.
  Europe was also mentioned, as was the Under-Secretary's letter following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). Again, the Under-Secretary seemed to think that he disproved the point, because the figure for employment growth in the UK between 1980 and 1990 was 6.4 per cent.
  It is interesting to look at the employment growth from 1980 through to 1993, which was what the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham was about. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there is a slightly negative figure for the UK. Every other country about which my hon. Friend asked had a positive figure. In other words, all the countries that had some form of minimum wage legislation had a better employment growth record in that period.
  I note that the same letter also makes the point about the low level of the minimum wage in the US. At least the US has accepted the principle, which is all we are asking the Government to do. A figure of $4.25 is quoted. If hon. Members refer to the study paper from the Library, they will find reference to another paper. Quite a lot of research on this has been done in America. When New Jersey, I believe, increased its minimum rate from $4.25 to something over $5, and the neighbouring state—I believe it is Pennsylvania—did not, there was a job increase in the state that increased its minimum wage. So why does the Conservative party not look at evidence from throughout the world, and, indeed, from this country, with agricultural wages boards and the wages councils, and see what has happened in practice, instead of inventing all the figures and feeding them through its computers?
  430
  There are, perhaps, reasons why that has happened in America, where minimum wages have increased, because in certain circumstances it is rational for employers not to hire new workers. Sometimes, it is rational for employers to keep output below the optimum, because sometimes they also have an interest in keeping wages low, and therefore having a pool of unemployed people in the labour market.
  We in the Labour party are saying that there must be a floor for wages. There will be a market failure in our economic system if we do not have that floor. It will not cost jobs, and we shall go on saying that until the general election. We know that the Government do not have many cards to play in the next general election, so they will be scaring the electorate about the minimum wage as well as about Scotland, where I come from. We know all the scares that we will hear, but the Labour party started its campaign last week to tell the British people the truth about the minimum wage. That is the message that we shall get across so that the Government will not be able to scare people into voting for them again.
  Miss Widdecombe: The standard of debate has deteriorated through the evening. We started off with an entirely sensible debate about disability provisions. We then had a debate which was total confusion and chaos because Opposition Members did not understand what was being proposed. Now, in our final debate, we have heard a rant of unreconstructed 1970s socialism from just about every Opposition Member who has contributed.
  The first point to get across in this debate—although one might have been forgiven for wondering whether that is what it is—is about a proposed amendment which would write in that there must be specified levels of remuneration. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) asked whether we would imitate countries that had child labour, low wages and so on. In fact, what we are going to imitate is our own existing system. In question 18 in relation to the jobseeker's allowance, the claimant is asked:
  "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
  The Opposition talk as if we were introducing something scandalous in the Bill. By the end of the evening, we even heard about it being "unlawful" to introduce that under the Bill. Yet under the "Helping you back to work" plan that the Employment Service currently operates, question 27—I appreciate that the Opposition may have had difficulty getting as far as that—asks:
  "What is the lowest amount before stoppages, etc. that you are willing to accept?"
  There is absolutely no change.
  Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way presently as I sympathise with the hon. Lady's obvious affliction, but I need to leave the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) time to respond, so there is some pressure. I will take the hon. Lady's intervention presently, but first I want to finish this statement because it is crucial that people should understand—I believe that they have been badly misled by the Labour party, both in the House and outside—that this does not represent a change.
  Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. I shall be quick. What would be an acceptable answer to question 18, which asks:
  "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"

  431
  What would be an acceptable answer to avoid an individual applying for the jobseeker's allowance being denied benefit for making an unreasonable claim on wage levels? Will the Minister answer that simple question?
  Miss Widdecombe: I refer the hon. Lady to clauses 7 and 8, which are about reasonableness. I shall come to that presently. What is being suggested by the Opposition today is that we could even get down as far as having no pay. The hon. Member for Makerfield actually said that. Given that this is a straight carrying over of the present system, how many people are currently offered nothing and then lose their benefit? The only incidence that I know of somebody being offered nothing was when a jobcentre displayed a vacancy on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, when he was advertising for an assistant. I do not suppose for one moment that it would have been regarded as unreasonable if somebody had turned down that job on the basis that no pay was being offered. That is the whole point.
  The Opposition are the scaremongers in this. They want people to believe, first, that there is a change and, secondly, that the policy would be unreasonably operated.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, so is the hon. Gentleman sure that he wants to intervene at this point?
  Mr. Burden: I am very sure indeed. Is the Minister now saying, unlike what she said on 21 February, that pay could constitute a reason for refusing an offer of work?
  Miss Widdecombe: What I was saying then—I understand that the hon. Gentleman may not have clicked on as quickly—was that no pay would constitute a clear reason. The hon. Member for Makerfield said specifically several times in his opening rant that nothing would count for these purposes.
  One other thing that I have to correct concerns the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), but he has just had his intervention, so that is bad luck. What he did not read out when quoting from my letter was the postscript, in which I said that it was a pity that he had not bothered to ask the Employment Department for an explanation before going public with his horror story.
  There is no question whatever of the purpose of that circular being to deny people their employment rights. The policy of the civil service since 1870—there have been a few Labour Governments since then—has been that recruitment to permanent posts in the civil service is to be done through fair and open competition. To that end, the guidance for the civil service is that for temporary workers, after one year of employment, their employment must cease and the job must become open to fair and reasonable competition from outside—in which they, of course, can compete. The hon. Gentleman can show me no part of employment law in which 51 weeks is significant. It has nothing to do with employment law, but everything to do with civil service fair and open competition.
  The hon. Gentleman then came to the other quote about managers ensuring that people have not accumulated two years. He read it as though it were something sinister. It cannot have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that
  432
  people who had accumulated two years would have the full rights of permanent employees, which would cut off opening their jobs up to fair and open competition. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to raise a storm in a teacup, but it is cruel, misleading and a sign of how desperate the Opposition must be if they cannot come up with anything better than that.
  Let me explain what will actually happen under our proposals, as opposed to the dreadful stories put about by the Opposition. As I have said, I do not think it reasonable for pay normally to constitute a ground for refusing an offer of work—but I emphasise the word "normally". Clause 16 continues the concept of the "permitted period" that the Government introduced in 1989: a claimant with a usual occupation has up to 13 weeks to refuse work outside that usual occupation and the rate of pay that he or she used to receive. The claimant will not be subject to a sanction in such circumstances.
  9 pm
  That system works in a sensible way. After the permitted period, claimants should start to widen their job search. I explained clearly in Committee that we were not interested in introducing a "cliff edge"; we do not suggest that, after 13 weeks and one day, someone who used to be a senior manager, for instance, should immediately seek work as a gardener, or take some other job that is wholly removed from his previous occupation. Of course unemployed people should be given a reasonable time in which to review their prospects. If the senior manager whom I have cited is still unemployed at the end of his permitted period, he might then be expected to start looking for a junior management or senior clerical position; but that is not to say that he must immediately take any job at any level.
  Obviously, the Employment Service will be offering jobs and operating sanctions. Hon. Members' objections can be interpreted to mean only that they do not trust the ordinary individuals in the Employment Service who will implement the rules. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the Employment Service will not set out to offer people inappropriate jobs.
  Having discussed the amendment, perhaps I can now examine the amazing claims that we have heard from the Opposition. First, they have consistently refused to tell us what the minimum wage will be. The Trades Union Congress wants to know what it will be; Conservative Members want to know what it will be; the country wants to know what it will be; businesses want to know what it will be; but still the Opposition will not tell us. Why is that? It is because they know that as soon as they do, the proper calculations on job losses will be done, and we shall then be able to estimate the size of what the deputy Leader of the Opposition has described as a shake-out. What will be shaken is people, and what they will be out of is jobs.
  The Opposition have ignored the Government's creation of 1.5 million jobs over a complete employment cycle. They have ignored the fact that we have 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Union from the United States and Japan—and why is that? It is because we have a flexible labour market. The Opposition have ignored the OECD report, which said that the reason for the investment was our flexible labour market. They have ignored the report by the International Monetary Fund, which said that Europe should be considerably more flexible. They have ignored the fact that the take-home pay

  433
  of the bottom 10 per cent. of full-time wage earners is 23 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. Indeed, the figure fell between 1975 and 1979.
  Will the Opposition apologise for their record? Will they look happy, for once, about the 36 per cent. rise in average disposable income that has taken place since we came to power? Will they welcome the fact that, following the abolition of the main wages councils, the pay of employees covered by those councils increased by 3.7 per cent.? Will they look at the facts? Will they welcome what we have achieved? Will they tell us what their minimum wage will be, and what the number of job losses will be? If they are not prepared to do that, will they at least stop spreading horror stories, start telling the electorate the truth and start preparing for the same fate at the hands of the electorate as they have suffered since 1979?
  Mr. McCartney: As is her wont when she is in trouble, the Minister ranted and raved. The fact is, however, that the Government's record on low pay is the worst in Europe. Ours is the only Government in Europe who make excuses for the ability of employees in privatised industries to earn £1 million overnight while others are forced to work for £1 an hour or less in other parts of the economy.
  The Minister failed to give any answers about the Government's intentions in regard to the Bill. Before dealing with her speech, however, I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for her eloquent testimony to the Government's abandonment of the defence communities in Dunfermline and other parts of Scotland. Her speech was a brilliant exposé of the Government's attack on workers who have contributed thousands of pounds in national insurance, and who then lose their right to benefit when they are made unemployed. In the Bill, the Government are taking the first steps towards abolition of the contributory benefits system.
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) served on the Standing Committee and he served his Government well during those eight weeks. He had only one problem today: like many barristers, he tried to make a good job of a bad brief—a Conservative central office brief. He failed to accept that, according to the Government's own figures, between March and December last year 78 per cent.—eight out of 10—jobs created in the British economy were part-time jobs. In the past decade, the Government have destroyed 3 million full-time jobs. They are the only Government in the western world to have seen no net employment gain during that period: indeed, there has been a net loss.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) presented a compelling argument in relation to the Government's proposals on low pay, and the way in which they are trying to use the unemployed to regulate the market by forcing down wages and allowing employers to engage in illegal practices and offer poverty pay. The Government's only purpose in abolishing the wages councils was to allow employers to pay wages which had previously been illegal. Under the present Government, poverty pay is legal: an employer can now pay £1.50 an hour without facing sanctions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) made a well-researched speech about investment in training-related research and development. He also made a good point about family benefits and benefit
  434
  clawbacks. Rather than taking people out of absolute poverty in work, the Government have left people in poverty while subsidising bad employers. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Government. We shall use family credit and in-work benefits to lift people out of absolute poverty. The Government use that to maintain them there and to provide subsidies for cowboy employers. We shall put an end to that situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) argued eloquently for the principle of a wages floor in the economy. He was an articulate and enthusiastic supporter of a minimum wage, arguing that low pay was unfair and inefficient, and that a minimum wage was fair and efficient. The Minister, in her usual way, continued to dodge the issue. She has had several opportunities to respond and I ask her yet again: will she fix a wages floor?
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Mr. McCartney: I am glad that the hon. Lady said that. She fell for the trap, which was set in Committee. The refusal to set a wages floor will mean—and she has admitted it—that under the jobseeker's agreement people will lose their benefit if they turn down a job that pays £1 an hour. No wages floor has been set at jobseeker's allowance level, at income support level, or at unemployment benefit level—not even £2.70 per hour, which was the level set by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in his letter to the Financial Times.
  The Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to ensure that people will be driven from the unemployment register into the hands of employers paying £1 an hour or less. I call on my hon. Friends to reject the Government's position on poverty pay and unemployment, to vote for the amendment and to support the unemployed and people on low pay.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 279.

  Division No. 110]

  [9.10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Byers, Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, Richard

  Alton, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Austin-Walker, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cann, Jamie

  Barnes, Harry

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Barron, Kevin

  Chidgey, David

  Battle, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bayley, Hugh

  Church, Judith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cummings, John

  435

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowell, Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Foulkes, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Maria

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  Garrett, John

  Madden, Max

  George, Bruce

  Maddock, Diana

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meale, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Redmond, Martin

  436

  Reid, Dr John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keitn

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wardel1, Gareth (Gower)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Clare

  Waston, Mike

  Simpson, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Wise, Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Churchill, Mr

  Alexander, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyes, Roland

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Elletson, Harold

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burns, Simon

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butcher, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forman, Nigel

  Carttiss, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Forth, Eric

  437

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  438

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ward, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  WhittJngdale, John

  Thumham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  young, Rt Hon Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. David Willetts and

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 8, in page 6, line 35, after `referred ', insert 'forthwith'.
  No. 9, in page 6, line 44, leave out first 'by' and insert `at the instigation of.
  No. 10, in page 6, line 44, leave out second `by'—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 12

  EFFECT ON OTHER CLAIMANTS
  Mr. Roger Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—
  '(aa) where the claimant and A are a married or unmarried couple, any portion of the applicable amount which is included in respect of them shall be reduced to one half for the period for which this subsection applies to the claimant.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 39 and 40.
  Mr. Evans: I understand that the Opposition are content for me to make only a short speech on amendment No. 11. The amendments are drafting and technical, but I should perhaps refer the House to amendment No. 12, where the first line includes the word "is", which is clearly a typographical error, and should be deleted. The amendment should read
  "Where a reduction under subsection (2)(aa) would not produce a sum which is a multiple of 5p".
  Mr. Bradley: I confirm that the Opposition are content with the amendments, but I add the caveat that we are not content with the clauses to which the amendments relate. We opposed them in Committee, and we continue to oppose them. I do not want the fact that we are not pressing the amendment to a vote tonight to be misconstrued.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 10, line 40, at end insert—
  '() Where a reduction under subsection (2)(aa) would not produce a sum which is a multiple of 5p, the reduction shall be to the nearest lower sum which is such a multiple.'.
  No. 13, in page 10, line 48, at end insert—
  '(5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply where an order made under section 150 of the Administration Act (annual up-rating of benefits) has the effect of increasing the sum prescribed in regulations made under section 4(5) as the personal allowance for a single person aged not less than 25 ("the personal allowance").
  (6) For the sum prescribed in regulations made under subsection (2)(c) there shall be substituted, from the time when the order comes into force, a sum arrived at by increasing the prescribed sum by the percentage by which the personal allowance has been increased by the order.
  (7) If the sum arrived at under subsection (6) is not a multiple of 50p—

  (a) any remainder of 25p or less shall be disregarded;

  (b) any remainder of more than 25p shall be rounded up to the nearest 50p.

  (8) The order shall state the sum substituted for the sum prescribed in regulations made under subsection (2)(c).
  (9) Nothing in subsection (6) prevents the making of further regulations under subsection (2)(c) varying the prescribed sum.'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 13
  SEVERE HARDSHIP
  Amendment made: No. 14, in page 11, line 35, leave out 'has' and insert 'and "other assistance" have'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]
Clause 15

  CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 13, line 34, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
  No. 16, in page 14, line 19, leave out 'more' and insert 'both'.
  No. 17, in page 14, leave out line 22.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 22

  THE BACK TO WORK BONUS
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 18, line 3, leave out 'subsection (5)(b) and to'.
  No. 19, in page 18, line 38, leave out from 'person' to end of line 44 and insert—
  '(1) the whole or a prescribed part of a back to work bonus to be payable, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to such person, other than the person who is or had been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support, as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 23

  EMPLOYMENT OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED: DEDUCTIONS BY EMPLOYERS
  Ms Lynne: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 18, line 48, after 'allowance', insert
  ', invalid care allowance or a benefit paid by virtue of his incapacity for work'.'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 18, line 48, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.
  No. 4, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.
  No. 5, in page 19, line 10, after 'deductions', insert
  'which may exceed the payments which he is required to make by way of secondary Class I contributions in respect of that person.'.
  Ms Lynne: The Bill does a great injustice to disabled people and their carers. The national insurance holiday to employers who take on someone who has been unemployed is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Obviously, I should like a full benefit transfer scheme, but that is a debate for another day. The Bill would exclude those who care for someone, those who claim invalidity care allowance, those who claim benefits that are paid on the grounds that they are incapable for work and those who suffer an illness or disability that qualifies them to claim incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
  The Minister may feel that he covered the amendment in Committee with the reply that he gave, but it was not adequate. He said:
  "The basic principle is that it is a work incentive proposal and there is no obvious case for extending it to those who are incapable of work… There are other helps for disabled people to get back into work in the form of disability working allowance at a more generous rate than family credit. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain extra premiums for disability, which again increases the amount of benefit that disabled people receive."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 February 1995; c. 640–41.]
  I do not think that that is good enough, although there are provisions within the social security system to help disabled people back to work. The disability working allowance is one such thing, but it is unlikely to have any impact as a work incentive and the take-up rate is only 17 per cent. It would take another 25 years for the Government to achieve their target of 50,000 claimants.
  The Minister missed the point in his reply in Committee. We are not talking about an incentive for those out of work. We are talking about an incentive for an employer to take people on. Employers can save about £6 a week. I do not see why that should not apply if they take on a qualified disabled person. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. The amendment has particular value for carers who want to return to work. I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People talked about considering the position of carers who received income support but were exempt from the requirement to sign on at the unemployment exchange.
  I hope that the Minister will clarify the position on carers and whether they could be included in the national insurance holiday. Could disabled people be included if they had been in receipt of incapacity benefit? If employers take on someone who is disabled could they be treated in the same way as if they had taken on someone who had been unemployed for two years? I hope that the Government will consider accepting the amendment. It would go a long way to helping disabled people and their carers.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bradley: I add the Labour party's voice to this group of amendments and announce that I will try to divide the House on amendment No. 3.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 reduce from two years to one year the qualifying period under which a new employer would get the national insurance contribution holiday. Amendment No. 5 deals with the amount of the

  441
  contribution rebate that clause 23 leaves to be prescribed in regulations and provides for the rebate to be more than the employer's contribution for the person in question.
  It is unfortunate that we have so little time to debate this important group of amendments, which deal with support for taking people off the long-term register and getting them back to work—one could describe it as pathways back to work.
  When she moved amendment No. 41, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) referred to our debate in Committee. It is important that I point out that we moved an amendment at that stage to provide that income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance or invalid care allowance should be included as part of the two-year qualifying period.
  As the Minister will know, I have corresponded with the Department during and since the Committee to try to clarify exactly how ex-carers and others who have been in receipt of incapacity benefits will be treated by the Bill and whether they will have the right to be included in any scheme that takes people off the long-term register.
  Carers who have been undertaking the caring role and have not been available for work should not be discriminated against in any way when that caring responsibility ends and should not be excluded for two years—those are the Government's terms—from any help for returning to work. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us further details on that matter, because there is a general wish on both sides of the House to support people in those circumstances.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in the Chamber. I tried to catch him before the debate started, as I did not want to do any further damage to his career by quoting him without giving him notice. His succinct and pertinent comments on Second Reading are worth quoting again, as they are relevant to amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. He was critical of the Government for failing to provide worthwhile incentives to employers to take on the long-term unemployed and his criticisms have a sound base. He said:
  "The problem is that, although the Government have accepted the principle, their measures are wholly inadequate. The national insurance holiday for employers who take on those who have been unemployed for two years or more will offer employers just £6 a week. Employers have already made it clear that this is simply not enough and that it does not offer an incentive.
  What is more, the national insurance holiday will not be introduced until April 1996. Why should the two-year unemployed have to wait to become unemployed for three and a half years before they get this measly incentive?"—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 61.]
  We could not express the purpose behind our amendments more clearly than that.
  There is a strong economic case for offering incentives to private sector employers to recruit the long-term unemployed. In the long run, that will allow the economy to grow faster while assisting the improvement of local economic activity in areas of social deprivation. The insecurity that people feel about their futures and the absence of the so-called "feel-good factor" are due to the chronic insecurity that people feel in their jobs.
  442
  The figures show for themselves why there is such debilitating uncertainty in the current climate and the current economy. Between 1993 and 1994, for example, 20 per cent. of all employees had left the job that they were in at the start of 1993. Similarly, people have a one in two chance of being out of their present job within two years. There are 1.5 million fewer jobs in the economy than in 1989, which means that 1.5 million jobs have disappeared during the recession and have not been replaced. In 1995, there are 3 million fewer full-time jobs than there were in 1979.
  For two months running, the number of vacancies at jobcentres fell. Having fallen by 3,400 in January, they fell by more than 2,000 in February. If people are unlucky enough to lose their job, they have a one in three chance that their next job will be part time. Once they have shifted into part-time work, they are twice as likely to lose their job within a year as an employee in a similar full-time position. The impact of that insecure world of work which the Government have created is disastrous for families trying to plan for themselves and their children. Furthermore, nearly 11 million people—40 per cent. of the work force—have been out of work at some point in the past five years. Men are hit worst; 44 per cent. or 6.8 million men have been affected. The unemployment figure is still almost 1 million higher than it was under the post-war Labour Government.
  All those figures and many more show that the current workings and deregulation of the labour market do not work. Long-term unemployment is grossly inefficient and unjust. There is a strong argument to support measures targeted at getting the long-term unemployed back to work. People who have lost their job in the past year have only a 23 per cent. chance of finding work within a month. If they are out of the labour market for a year, their chance of finding work falls to just 12 per cent.
  Sir Peter Emery: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to argue that employers should keep people in work to stay inefficient and that people should be kept in employment to increase prices and to have inefficient industry? Is that the policy that the Labour party is putting forward? Is he saying that industry should not return to efficient organisation? Is that what the Labour party wants? If so, we want to know.
  Mr. Bradley: That intervention was quite amazing. The purpose of the amendments is to build on the Government's measures. They have recognised that they must create incentives to get the long-term unemployed off the dole queue. The right hon. Gentleman implied that he did not even support those modest measures and wants no help to be given to the long-term unemployed. He clearly does not understand the Bill before us, the clause that we are dealing with and the fact that the amendments that we are discussing would help people to return to work. He should concentrate his mind on those matters and even read the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the proposals.
  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor recognised that the Government must introduce those measures, and they have been included in the Jobseekers Bill, the back-to-work schemes and the back-to-work bonus. The amendments seek to reinforce, improve and extend those measures to help people who, because they have been out of work for one or two years, stand little chance of getting back into work. I should have thought that the right hon.

  443
  Gentleman would have felt some responsibility, given how long his party has been in government, for trying to help the long-term unemployed back into work. That is the sole intention of the amendments.
  At the same time as the Chancellor announced his measures to help the long-term unemployed, we put forward the Labour party's eight pathways back into work. Given the intervention from the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), it is worth re-emphasising that clear Labour party policy to help the long-term unemployed. We strongly believe in the release of capital receipts to enable local authorities to build and launch small business expansion schemes, so that those businesses can expand and take on new workers. We shall introduce a benefit transfer programme for non-profit employers to help them to take on the unemployed in their areas. We shall propose an environmental task force, open to all young people. We shall look at tax rebates for employers who take on those who have been unemployed for two years or more. We shall look at modernising the benefits system so that we can ensure that people have pathways out of poverty through a combination of properly paid work and benefits.
  We have just had an excellent debate on the minimum wage, which revealed that the Labour party is seeking proper wages for employment, topped up by benefits, rather than that people are ground down into poverty through the benefit system. We shall work to set up national child care systems to ensure that there are full opportunities for everyone to get back into employment.
  We shall introduce many other measures when we are in government. At this stage, we want to ensure that the Bill provides the maximum opportunities to ensure that those who have been long-term unemployed and registered as such have the opportunity to benefit from the modest schemes that the Government have introduced. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are therefore designed to ensure that the Government include people who have been unemployed for between one and two years in the proposed new system. In particular, amendment No. 41 would guarantee that those people who have not been on the unemployment register but who have been unemployed through no fault of their own, because they have willingly undertaken the essential task of caring, also benefit from the Government's proposals.
  As the hon. Member for Rochdale reminded us, in Committee the Government were not minded to look more sympathetically at the needs of the long-term unemployed or to consider lowering the unemployment threshold from two years to one. Since then, I hope that the Government have reflected on their position. I hope that they now appreciate that it is important that the plight of carers who, having undertaken caring responsibilities, face great difficulties when they try to get back into work, should be recognised.
  More should be done to encourage the long-term unemployed back into work. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement by demonstrating that he has recognised the problem and by looking sympathetically at the amendments. I hope that he will accept them; otherwise we shall divide the House on amendments Nos. 41 and 3.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I begin with amendment No. 41, which is otiose because clause 23(6)(a) gives a power to prescribe circumstances in respect of people who do not
  444
  satisfy the terms of clause 23(1). They can be treated as such. The necessary empowerment to make the regulations is already included in the Bill. Therefore it is unnecessary to pass the amendment in order to achieve the object that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), sought to persuade me to achieve.
  I regret that I am not in a position to offer any satisfaction on the two policy matters that were mentioned. First, in respect of the disabled, the hon. Member for Rochdale fairly quoted me from Standing Committee, and the Government remain of the view that disabled people receive help to return to work in other ways. Disability working allowance is available at a more generous rate than family credit. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain premiums for disability which also increase the amount of benefits that disabled people receive. Disabled people will qualify for the extra £10 premium in family credit or disability working allowance if returning to work for 30 hours or more a week.
  9.45 pm
  Ms Lynne: The Minister has not understood, as I said in my speech. We are talking about giving the employer an incentive to employ disabled people, not the other way round—not giving the disabled person the incentive to get into work.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady makes a fair point of analysis, but at the end of the day there is a question of money, whichever way round one tackles it. The Government's opinion is that the package announced in the uprating statement is an important, and indeed expensive, work incentive measure. The measures will cost an extra £300 million in benefit expenditure and will cut costs to business by a further £300 million when the national insurance reduction is taken into account. The Government's opinion at this stage is that we have gone a very long way. There is power in the Bill to go as far as the hon. Member for Rochdale wishes, but we do not propose to do so at the moment.
  The second category, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Withington as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale, was that of ex-carers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has expressed sympathy. Indeed, he has written to the hon. Member for Withington, explaining that that category would not be entitled to the national insurance holiday, but expressing sympathy for the opinion that those who had received income support should be able to qualify and offering to consider the matter. I am not in a position to take the matter any further this evening, but that is the position as it stands.
  The three amendments that the Labour party has tabled are extremely interesting and important. The purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 4 is to make labour more attractive for hiring. The idea is that national insurance contributions are expensive; the employer has to meet them; if one gives a holiday from them, that is a direct incentive to the employer. The pair of amendments seek to extend that concession to employers from two years to one. The inexorable logic of the argument is that, by making labour cheaper, employers will have an incentive to take on more employees. Conservative Members strongly concur with that viewpoint.

  445
  It is deeply ironic that the inexorable sanity and logic of that position has been denied for the rest of the evening, because the minimum wage that Labour Members have contended for would have the effect of making labour more expensive. Somehow the Opposition wish to have more people in employment by making labour cheaper by those amendments, but refuse to accept the corollary that, if one increases the cost of labour by introducing a minimum wage, it will have the opposite effect. That is cloud cuckoo land of a most extraordinary nature, and shows the fundamental failing to understand a free market economy that is endemic on the Opposition Benches.
  The difficulty with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are well intended, well meant and no doubt efficacious in the sense that they provide a positive incentive to increase the amount of people employed by reducing the cost of labour, is that, unhappily, they cost the taxpayer a considerable sum of money. The effect of amendment No. 3 would be to increase the category of employees who would potentially benefit from about 120,000 to 500,000 to 600,000. The precise effects are not necessarily easy to predict, but it is obvious that an estimated cost to the taxpayer of about £45 million would increase to about £170 million to £200 million in the terms of those two amendments. I regret to say that the Government believe that a considerable amount of money has been spent on the issue and it is not appropriate now to increase the burden on the taxpayer. In Committee, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) proposed amendments to like effect and suggested that they did not represent a spending commitment.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that, because the cost would be met out of the consolidated fund—general taxation—it was a mere book-keeping exercise. Increasing the burden on general taxation would, as a consequence, increase the amount needed to be raised from taxpayers to cover the additional cost. In no sense was it a book-keeping exercise. The hon. Gentleman's logic in Committee was incapable of being followed. The reality is that, yet again, the Labour party is arguing for a substantial public expenditure commitment.
  Amendment No. 5 is in a different category. I can happily say that it is otiose in the sense that the Bill contains the power to do the same thing in any event.
  Mr. McCartney: What does otiose mean?
  Mr. Evans: Otiose, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, means unnecessary and repetitious. The power already exists—[Interruption.] I can say to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) that I shall be brief.
  The Government expect to provide, in regulations, for the deduction to equate to the amount of the employer's national insurance contributions. But the Bill contains the power to make that amount more or less. It is likely that we shall make provision in regulations for employers who operate occupational pension schemes to claim an amount equal to their gross national insurance liability—the actual amount of contracted-out national insurance contributions paid, plus an amount equal to the employers' 3 per cent. contracted-out rebate. That puts all employers on an equal footing and encourages them to include employees who qualify for the national insurance contribution holiday within the pension scheme, which will be beneficial to
  446
  them. If amounts in excess of the employers' contribution liability were generally to be available, that would increase the amount of money involved and increase the burden to the general taxpayer.
  The national insurance contribution holiday scheme is intended to be easy for employers to understand and operate, and for the Department to administer, within a given cost. We are concerned to keep it on a broad basis and limit exceptions that would otherwise complicate a straightforward scheme. I invite the House to reject amendment No. 41 on the basis that, even if it is necessary and desirable to carry out the policy intentions urged on me, which I reject, the Bill already contains the power to take such action were the Government to be persuaded to change their mind.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are extremely expensive. The Government understand the logic of the desirability of making labour cheaper to encourage more people to be taken on. I remain baffled by the fact that that logic was missing in the earlier argument this evening.
  I urge the House to reject amendment No. 5 on the basis that the Bill already contains the power. I have explained the way in which we intend to pursue the regulations.
  Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, but I am not grateful for the fact that he has not accepted amendment No. 41, especially when the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said that he would consider it. I was hoping that we would receive a commitment tonight from the Under-Secretary of State further to the statement from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I am also worried that disabled people, along with carers, will not be encouraged to get work. If we had a national insurance holiday for carers as well, it would help them to get back into work.
  The Minister also said that the scheme would cost a great deal of money. He seems to forget that it is cost-effective to get people back to work. It might cost money for the national insurance holiday to be extended to disabled people and carers, but we should think of the savings in benefit. If the people who are now receiving benefit got back into work, that would represent a great saving for the Treasury rather than a cost. It is a great shame that the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 41 and I shall certainly wish to put it to the vote.
  Mr. Bradley: I was glad to hear the Minister's views on the amendments, although I am clearly disappointed by what he said. It is correct that I have been in correspondence with the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, as I thought I mentioned in my opening remarks on the amendment. I will continue with that correspondence in an effort to assist carers as much as possible within the benefit system and to try to ensure that they benefit from the Government's schemes.
  The Minister was disingenuous in describing our proposals. We recognise—the shadow Chancellor stated it quite clearly at the time of the Budget—that extra expenditure will be required in the short term in order to extend the pathways back to work proposals. That will prove economically efficient in the long term.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand the force of his argument,

  447
  but it may assist the House in forming a view about it if he were to estimate the short-term cost of the back-to-work package that he has described.
  Mr. Bradley: I urge the Minister to read the statements made by the shadow Chancellor at the time of the Budget when he presented the whole package. The Minister is welcome to come back to me if he thinks that the package will not prove economically efficient and at least cost neutral in the long term. It must be a better use of human resources to remove people from the unemployment register so that they stop claiming benefit and start paying taxes.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bradley: It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Lady has just wandered into the Chamber.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have been here on and off.
  Mr. Bradley: That is certainly not true. I have been in the Chamber for six and a half hours and it is the first time that I have seen the hon. Lady here. She must have wandered in and out in a dream, because she has certainly not had anything to do with the debate.
  I will quote from the Chancellor's last Budget speech in support of my views. He said:
  "We must combine greater prosperity for the majority with measures to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare".—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1079.]
  Through our amendments, we are saying that the measures that the Chancellor has taken and those in the Jobseekers Bill do not go far enough. They scratch only the surface in tackling the problems of the long-term unemployed in this country.
  If the legislation's intention was to create jobs, its thrust would be primarily towards measures to help people back to work. However, the Government's key measures cut the benefits that are available to unemployed people and undermine the basic contributory principles. They reduce from 12 months to six months the amount of benefit that people will receive from their payments through the national insurance scheme. The Bill's whole emphasis is wrong; we believe that the Government should look at further enhanced measures to help the unemployed back into the work force. That is why, after reflection in Committee, the amendments were tabled to allow the Minister to reconsider the opportunity to extend the proposals in the way that the amendments are framed. It is to be regretted that he has not taken that opportunity and in that light we shall divide the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 278.

  Division No. 111]

  [9.59

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Alton, David

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  448

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gunnell, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hain, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chidgey, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dixon, Don

  Litherland, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dowd, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fraser, John

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maddock, Diana

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Meacher, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Michael, Alun

  449

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Miller, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Simpson, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mathew (Truro)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Turner, Dennis

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Randall, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Reid, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ms Liz Lynne.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bates, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Churchill, Mr

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bowis, John

  Congdon, David

  450

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksely, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  451

  Rathbone, Tim

  Sweeney, Walter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Watts, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o 'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)
  That, at this day's sitting, the Jobseekers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 18, line 48, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.—[Mr. Bradley.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 280.

  Division No. 112]

  10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  452

  Burden, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hodge, Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cann, Jamie

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Enright, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fraser, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  MacShane, Denis

  Galloway, George

  McWilliam, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  George, Bruce

  Maddock, Diana

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hall, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  453

  Mudie, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Smith, Chris (Islton S & F'sbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Olner, Bill

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stevenson, George

  Patchett, Terry

  Stott, Roger

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. Alan Ingram.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butcher, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butler, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Churchill, Mr

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Congdon, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Couchman, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Cran, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Day, Stephen

  454

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd"n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  455

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sackville, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spring, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Whittingdale, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stem, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. David Willetts and

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 26

  TERMINATION OF AWARDS
  Amendments made:No. 20, in page 21, line 34, after `or', insert
  'where he is a member of a married or unmarried couple'.
  No. 21, in page 21, line 39, after 'or', insert
  'where he is a member of a married or unmarried couple.'.
  No. 22, in page 21, line 42, leave out from "'partner"' to end of line and insert
  'means the other member of the couple concerned.'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 27

  INSPECTORS
  Amendments made: No. 23, in page 22, line 10, leave out 'he considers' and insert 'may be'.
  No. 24, in page 22, line 19, at end insert
  'but do not include a private dwelling-house unless the inspector has reasonable grounds for supposing that the dwelling-house is being used for the purposes of a trade or business.'. —[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 28

  OFFENCES
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 23, line 37, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'that section'.
  No. 26, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.
  No. 27, in page 23, line 44, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.
  No. 28, in page 24, line 7, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 29

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 24, line 33, at end insert
  '"employed earner" has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act;'.
  No. 30, in page 25, line 12, leave out
  'such meaning as may be prescribed'
  and insert
  'the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 31

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL
  Amendments made: No. 31, in page 26, line 41, at end insert 'or'.
  No. 32, in page 26, line 43, leave out from '29(1)' to end of line 44.
  No. 33, in page 27, line 2, leave out from 'under' to end of line 6 and insert
  'section 24 or paragraph (b) of the definition of "pension payments" in section 29(1).'—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Schedule 1

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 34, in page 31, leave out lines 41 to 45.
  No. 35, in page 32, leave out lines 15 to 21.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Schedule 2
  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 33, line 26, at end insert—
  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

    'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49)
    . In section 78(2A) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (relief from payment of contributions in respect of children subject to supervision requirements etc.), after "income support" insert ", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".'.
    No. 37, in page 34, line 5, at end insert—

    'The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 44)
    . In section 53(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (school meals), after "income support" insert "or of an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)" and for "it" substitute "that benefit".'.
    No. 38, in page 34, line 14, at end insert—

    'The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c.47)
    The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
    In section 8(b) (availability of advice and assistance), after "income support "insert", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".
    In section 11(2)(b) (contributions in respect of advice and assistance), after "income support" insert ", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".'
    No. 39, in page 35, line 21, after 'to', insert 'half'.
    No. 40, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'the claimant' and insert 'them'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]
    Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

PETITION

  South West Water
  10.29 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition which has been collected by the Sunday Independent newspaper on behalf of the South West Water consumers in my area who are deeply concerned that their water bills have doubled since the privatisation of water, and who know that their bills are to rise further and that they have to pay more than any other region in the country.
  To the Honourable the commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the people of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset sheweth that water consumers in the south west of England have seen their bills double since 1989 and are burdened with the highest water bills in the whole country.
  Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take urgent action to prevent further water price rises for domestic users in the south west and will ensure that South West Water considers the plight of domestic users as well as the interests of its shareholders and businesses in the region.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition has been signed by 42,511 people.
  To lie upon the Table.

Penalties for Crime
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must point out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that the case of PC King is sub judice, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not include any reference to it in his speech.
Dr. Robert Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have heard a lot recently about the rights and welfare of offenders, but, as Members of Parliament, we have a much higher priority, which is a responsibility to the law-abiding public and to the victims of crime. We have a responsibility to protect them from the offender and from those who would threaten violence.
There is too much excusing of bad behaviour and not enough unequivocal condemnation of it. The public are sick to the back teeth of thugs laughing at justice as they walk free, while the Crown Prosecution Service—in its politically correct way—pursues those who seek to defend the public. The public have a clear view of crime and punishment, and their perceptions are worthy. First, they want the CPS to exhibit more common sense in its prosecution policy and to pursue the real villains who go out to cause mischief and mayhem, and not good people. Secondly, the public believe that when the courts find people guilty of a serious crime, they should give tough sentences. They also believe that Parliament should provide a more effective range of sentences for the courts to use. Thirdly, people think that when villains are sent to prison, they should endure a tough and stark regime which will deter, as well as rehabilitate. There can be no place in prison cells for television sets, home comforts and drugs.
We are making good progress on fighting crime, not least because of the sound guiding hand of men such as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is to reply to the debate. My hon. Friend is greatly admired by his Dorset constituents. I know that because I represented those people on the police authority in Dorset, and also as a police cells lay visitor.
Crime figures are now significantly down—particularly property crime—and my hon. Friend may be able to give us the statistics. That welcome fall in crime is due to a number of factors which are worth examining. The work of the police in targeting persistent offenders has been important, and courts have done their duty by increasingly putting habitual thieves into prison. My constituents know that prison works, not least because the villain cannot prey on the vulnerable while he is locked up.
We heard on "Kilroy" last Thursday that the one thing which really deters young villains is the shock of a custodial sentence. Ex-villains made that point graphically in the evidence which they gave on "Kilroy". They said that they laughed at probation officers and community orders, but that they did not laugh at prison. Some of them thought that they had been robbed of years of their lives because they were not given proper punishment early enough. The mother of one of the young offenders made

459
a plea from the heart for her son to be dealt with more harshly, so that he could learn the real lessons of life. I shall return to that point later.
I must stress the importance of parental responsibility. Society must do more to reinforce that responsibility both by empowering courts to enforce it more effectively and by helping more vulnerable parents to cope.
Crime prevention has an important role. Castle Point's local crime prevention officer, Gordon Sinclair, is worth his weight in gold. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) agrees with me on that. Mr. Sinclair is the local catalyst in partners against crime. He has launched successful industrial estate watch schemes and even developed an innovative neighbourhood cluster security scheme which has rightly received Home Office commendation.
Recent Home Office achievements include tougher standards for community sentences, new guidelines to limit repeat cautioning, new parish councils, less paperwork for the police so that they can get out on the streets and additional powers for the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we now give better treatment to victims.
In the Government's legislative programme key issues have been firmly tackled. For instance, a move has been made to give custodial sentences to persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders. There has been a crackdown on bail bandits. The Government have reformed the right to silence rule, which benefited the professional crooks. A new DNA database has been established to help detect serious crime. Those are all sound measures. It is a great pity that Opposition Members are so churlish about them.
For less serious crime, we need non-custodial sentences, but they must be more rigorous and effective and better focused on the needs of the law-abiding community as well as dealing with the offenders with understanding, compassion and thoughtfulness, of course. So I welcome the Green Paper "Strengthening punishment in the community". It foreshadows the replacement of the soft, easy option of current community punishments and empowers the courts to be more innovative and focused in sentencing. In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, it lets the punishment fit the crime, and about time too.
Let me give an example of how the proposed single integrated community sentence might operate. I take the case of a drunken fool who goes out late at night to damage people's property by spraying graffiti. The court could specify all or any of the following. It could require reparation to the community by ordering 50 hours' clean-up work, including graffiti removal. It could restrict the offender from returning to the homes or the area that he damaged. It could impose a curfew order on the offender of, say, 9 o'clock so that he was back at home and not out in the dark doing his mischief. It could also order his attendance at an alcohol abuse clinic, giving an element of rehabilitation and hope to the offender. All this is common sense and therefore it has my backing.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Orange county in California graffiti vandals have six strokes of a rattan cane and in St. Louis they are considering putting this on television? I proposed
460
at the weekend that we should consider seriously the use of a rattan cane for our very violent criminals. Perhaps the Minister might take that on board.
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is never knowingly oversold when it comes to defending vulnerable people in our society against those who would go about with villainy in their mind. I congratulate her on her efforts on behalf of vulnerable people and her constituents.
We need to go further and provide a greater range of alternatives to gaol—non-custodial sentences. So I welcome the trial of the so-called boot camp philosophy, which also comes from the American experience. We should focus on the best of that experience to give a tough and rigorous reforming regime for our wayward youngsters. It must inject discipline into vulnerable young lives which have had little structure and which social systems have betrayed by withholding timely and effective punishment and strict frameworks of behaviour.
I should also like to look again at the short, sharp shock of incarceration, but not the old 46-day model, which failed. It was too long. It gave the youngsters time to settle down, to achieve a pecking order and to learn from each other. We need a new, five to seven-day model—much shorter and infinitely sharper.
We must let youngsters know with absolute certainty and at the earliest possible stage in their careers in crime what the future would hold for them. To treat young offenders with inappropriate kindness and understanding is often to deceive them into a life on the slippery slope of crime and to betray them in the way that we betrayed our youngsters in education, with a politically correct and totally counter-productive, progressive social and education system.
I welcome the Government's move to resist solutions such as that of Essex social services, under a now disgraced Labour and Liberal pact, where young thieves and thugs were sent on foreign holidays and were thereby positively encouraged and reinforced in their wayward ways by misguided social workers.
Some hon. Members advocate bringing back flogging, as we just heard—
Mrs. Peacock: Caning.
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend advocates caning. If we do it, we should do it properly and it should be a real deterrent on the Singapore model. Any hon. Member who thinks that it would not work and would not deter thugs and vandals should go to Singapore, where they will see women walking in the streets safely at night. They will not see any cars being vandalised on the streets and the only joyriders are young children playing on the carousel in safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has done the House a great service by raising that important issue, and I congratulate her. She found a most novel and effective way to bring the matter to public attention.
For most serious crimes, I want the most serious punishment. I want hanging for certain types of murder and I do not say that lightly.
Mr. David Amess: Does my hon. Friend agree that the restoration of capital punishment for pre-determined murder would act as an effective deterrent? Does he also agree that, if it saved one life, it

461
would be worth while? Finally, does he agree that, by failing to vote for its restoration, the House has let the British people down and has damaged our sense of fairness and of making the punishment fit the crime?
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes his point most eloquently and persuasively. He is absolutely right, as always. He will have noted a week or so ago that a murderer, who had murdered his girlfriend, done his sentence and been let out, then murdered his next girlfriend. No doubt he will be back in prison and I wonder whether we will let him out a second and a third time. That is a very good point.
On armed robbery, villains are going equipped with firearms to commit an ever-widening and ever more petty range of crimes. They even go armed with guns to rob sweet shops. They take guns only after careful planning and deliberation. The one who carries the gun should add this to his deliberations—if convicted, he will go down for a statutory minimum of 10 years, and probably longer. There will be no remission for good behaviour, but only longer for bad behaviour. There will be no mitigating circumstances and no argument of, "It was his first offence, M'lud." That would have a salutary deterrent impact on the villain's decision to tool up. It would make society a safer place, make life safer for police and it would help Parliament to withstand pressure to arm the police, which would be wrong.
On the killing of Tony Martin, my 17-year-old constituent, the judge said of the guilty man, 31-year-old Andrew Osborne,
"you opened that knife and plunged it into a 17-year-old boy's body."
He received six years' imprisonment and may serve only four, which is not enough to serve as a sound deterrent and to protect society.
The thug was convicted of manslaughter—a verdict that many of my constituents think was a travesty. I will not comment on it.
I have the first instalment of a massive local petition, which I shall present to the House once it is complete. It calls for the sentence to be referred to the Court of Appeal. We cannot bring back young Tony Martin, as much as our hearts and sympathies go out to his loving and caring family, but we can help them in their grief by giving them hope that other young people will be safer in the future. We can do that by making it a much more serious offence for knives to be taken to places of entertainment where young people congregate.
Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental reason for the ridiculous circumstances that we find ourselves in is that we have had a succession of weak-kneed Home Secretaries since the war—one after another? Are not civil servants in the Home Office to blame for that state of affairs? When will the present Home Secretary show his true colours and get hanging and corporal punishment restored and castration introduced? If someone rapes, castrate him! When will we start to have Conservative principles, not the wishy-washy politics of the lot that sit opposite?
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic firmness, and I agree with much of what he
462
said. I cannot agree with his criticism of the Home Secretary, however, as his decisions must reflect public opinion. I want, with my hon. Friend, to influence public opinion to ensure that the public force us to take the action that they want us to take, which is to get tough on villains. That is the message that we receive.
I refer to recent cases of police officers who have been charged with assault having dealt with hooligans and serious thugs. I have such a constituency case, but the attorney informed me this afternoon that an appeal has been lodged. The matter is therefore sub judice and I shall respect that. I hope that, if necessary, I can bid again for a suitable occasion to raise that specific constituency matter. Tonight, however, I shall speak generally.
It is said that the law is an ass; I say that people who interpret the law badly and in defiance of justice are the asses. Society expects the police and all good citizens to step in to save a child, an elderly person or a youth from the violent threat of a thug. We certainly do not want a constable to stand back and wait for that threat to become a reality, and an elderly person to be cast to the floor, or a baby to be thrown from a train. If a police constable reacts to a situation not of his making and without malice, exerting reasonable force in response to a violent threat to the public, he should not risk losing his job. That would be unjust and disproportionate.
If a constable were to lose his job in such circumstances, the message to every police officer would be crystal clear. It would be, "Don't get stuck in to protect a threatened, vulnerable member of the public. Stand back. Wait for the thug to do his worst and convert his violent threat into violent action. Then politely ask the thug if he would care to accompany you to the station. Show him your warrant card and hope that he will be impressed by that"—I doubt it in this day and age— "and if you do step in, remember: you may lose your job."
Society must avoid sending out that message. We all accept that the police rely on community, co-operation and confidence to do their job effectively. Serving police officers, politicians and communities across this nation have watched those cases develop with great concern. They have written in their thousands in support of accused policemen, particularly in recent weeks, but they need have no fear—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he seems to be describing a particular case, even though he has not mentioned it. Will he get away from that case?
Dr. Spink: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to steer my speech in more general terms.
Police commissioners, if not all courts, are sound and sensible. They know that the PC Guscott precedent must weigh heavily. Commissioners of police are experienced, good men, with a clear sense of justice.
A court might assume that a policeman, observing a violent threat, should walk away or try to reason with the thug and that that thug, left to his own devices, would not carry out his original threat, nor subsequently harass or pick a fight with another person. The policeman would not have the time or hindsight enjoyed by a court that subsequently decided on the matter. That policeman must decide, on the spur of the moment, what to do and he may

463
decide that safe is better than sorry and remove the threat by using reasonable and proportionate force. That is what I and other hon. Members would want him to do.
The courts should take into account not just the probability of outcome, but the gravity of it. Let me explain that complex evaluation of a decision with an illustration. A 100 per cent. probability of a £1 outcome has less worth than a 1 per cent. probability of a £1 million outcome. We all understand that, so let me take that illustration further. Where the thug threatens the most grievous harm and the policeman takes minor physical action to remove that threat, those facts must weigh heavily when judging the reasonableness of the policeman's decision. The slaughter of a child would be a grievous threat, as would a threat to attack an old person.
If doubt remains in the minds of hon. Members, let me add a second and rather chilling thought. What if a citizen or an off-duty policeman had been in the pub when 17-year-old Tony Martin was knifed on Canvey island? If he heard the escalating threat and moved in to stop the developing fracas, he might have hit a thug and made an arrest, if he thought that that was reasonable. The CPS may have prosecuted that bobby for common assault, particularly if an independent witness stood against him. We should, of course, ask searching questions about any so-called independent witness's experience of the police.
After the event, the CPS and others in the court might argue that, in any case, no one ever believed that real harm had been intended. Perish the thought. People had merely made boastful threats and no one in the pub would have done anyone else any harm. Of course not. But Tony Martin died that night. If an off-duty policeman had been in that pub, Martin might have lived. Perhaps that is why we should not judge the police too sanctimoniously when they act genuinely to meet the threat of violence, and they, rather than the thug, end up in court. If, on the spur of the moment, the police make an error of judgment—I am not saying that they do—they should not lose their jobs.
I welcome the Government's sound crime and punishment policy. I encourage them to be even tougher in the future. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your patience.
10.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on losing no time in securing an early opportunity to debate penalties on crime following the publication, last week, of the Government's Green Paper on community punishments.
My hon. Friend's concern for law and order is well known and well respected and is as one would expect from a former county councillor for God's own county of Dorset. It was remarkable to me, but not surprising, that he was supported in the excellent debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). They added their support for punishment for graffiti vandals and capital punishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield offered us the three Cs—capital, corporal and castration. The only source of disagreement with my hon. Friend is that he referred to "the lot sitting opposite"; but Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed, as I have done,
464
despite my not-perfect sight, that no Opposition Members are present for this debate on law and order. Law and order are of the greatest concern to my hon. Friends and I deeply regret that no Opposition Members are here to join that debate. Naturally, I was pleased to note my hon. Friend's strong support for the general thrust of Government policy on law and order, and I shall do my best, in the moments that remain, to respond to as many of those arguments as possible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point knows, the Government's approach to tackling crime has sought to ensure, first, that a proper emphasis is given to the prevention of crime; secondly, that the police have adequate powers to apprehend the guilty; thirdly, that justice is fairly as well as efficiently done; and, fourthly, that the courts have the necessary powers to deal effectively with those who are convicted. We are also committed, as my hon. Friend noted in his speech, to providing better treatment for the victims of crime.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining some of the Government's significant achievements. As he says, it is a pity that not everyone in the House—one looks at the empty Opposition Benches—has the interest to be with us tonight or has supported the measures that we have introduced. Indeed, most of our difficult but necessary measures have been introduced in the House in the teeth of fierce opposition by our Opposition opponents.
At the outset of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned three specific public anxieties about law and order. The first of those concerned the prosecution policy adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that anxieties are sometimes expressed by members of the public about cases that have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as about some cases that have been taken to court.
It is not for me, as a Minister, to comment on the way in which the independent CPS makes its decisions, but the general policy of the CPS appears to be pretty sensible—to prosecute all offences where the evidence provides a realistic prospect of conviction and where it is in the public interest to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned that the public believe that those found guilty of serious crimes should be given tough sentences. The Government entirely agree that those who commit serious crimes should be properly dealt with by the courts. Indeed, so that long sentences can be imposed, we have ensured that tough penalties are available for the most serious crimes. Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder and the maximum for other grave crimes such as manslaughter, rape, wounding with intent and robbery. We are committed to keeping penalties under review to ensure that they remain appropriate. Where changes are needed, we do not hesitate to make them.
Sentencing in individual cases must be a matter for the court that has heard all the evidence in a case. The sentencing framework in which the courts operate does, however, explicitly link the type of penalty that will be appropriate with the seriousness of the offence committed. The length of a prison sentence, where one is imposed, will similarly be affected by the seriousness of the offence.
The Government are aware that unduly lenient sentencing in serious cases undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why we introduced

465
the power that the Attorney-General now has to refer serious cases to the Court of Appeal if it appears that the sentence is unduly lenient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly notes, we have recently extended that power to include a wider range of offences.
Towards the start of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the crime figures and asked whether I could provide the most recent figures. For the 12 months to June 1994, 5.4 million crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales—a 5.5 per cent. decrease on the previous 12 months. The figure for property crime, to which my hon. Friend especially referred, decreased by 6 per cent., for burglary and theft by 8 per cent. and for vehicle crime by 9 per cent. As he knows, we have been very encouraged by recent decreases in recorded crime. We know, however, that there is no room for complacency. It remains of great concern to the Government that crime is a reality for far too many people. The tough stance against crime and the criminal must continue.
I was pleased to note my hon. Friend's support for the use of community sentences for less serious crime. As he rightly said, we have recently introduced tougher national
466
standards for existing community sentences. I was equally pleased to note his support for the proposals outlined in the Green Paper that we published last week.
My hon. Friend also suggested that a further look should be taken at the short, sharp shock of incarceration. He rightly acknowledged that the experiment with such regimes during the 1980s was not a success. He suggested a different approach that would simply give young offenders a taste of what prison was like to discourage them, at an early stage, from pursuing a life of crime.
My hon. Friend mentioned a recent case in his constituency involving the death of a young man. I recognise the strong feelings so understandably felt by Mr. Martin's family and friends, and by other people in the area. I appreciate that it can sometimes be difficult for people to understand why there has been a manslaughter verdict in such cases. The position in law is that where, on a charge of murder, there is evidence on which a jury can find that the person charged was provoked—
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 Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Summary Financial Statements
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to seek views on the proposed changes to the regulations governing summary financial statements. [16083]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has today published a consultative document seeking views on a number of recommendations for changes to the regulations governing summary financial statements. The document recommends changes to the procedures for consulting shareholders, the content of the SFS and the drafting of the regulations. The proposals have been developed with the help of business and the accountancy profession. They aim to make the SFS regime simpler and a more attractive option for companies and encourage their more widespread use.

  The Department believes that greater use of SFS would benefit both business and shareholders. For business, they offer opportunities for cost savings and improved shareholder communications. Shareholders—in particular, private investors—benefit by receiving company information in a form which is easier to understand and more relevant to their needs, while still retaining the right to receive full reports if they choose.

  The Department is also seeking views on changes to the content of SFS issued by insurance companies, which are necessary to align with new EU rules.

  Copies of the consultative document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Comments should reach my Department by 19 May 1995.

  Regional Development Organisations
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet considered the business plans of the English regional development organisations; and what level of financial support he proposes to offer for 1995–96. [16084]

  Mr. Eggar
  I am pleased to announce a 53 per cent. increase in funding next year to attract inward investment to the English regions.

  Grants for the eight regional development organisations will be £8.551 million in 1995–96, compared with £5.605 million for the previous year. The increase reflects the real importance that the Government attach to maintaining and developing Britains place as the preferred location for investment in the EU. It is apparent from their performance that they continue to play an important and successful role in attracting inward investment to Britain.
  194
  I am also pleased to welcome the setting up of a new regional development organisation for the west of England which is planned to begin operation in the autumn.

  RDOs have been working closely with my Departments Invest in Britain Bureau. The increase in funding will allow them to continue and step up their activity to attract further investment over the next year, in the face of European and global competition. I have allocated the grant aid as follows:

  RDO

  1995–96 grant £000

  Percentage share of total grant

  Northern Development Company (NDC)

  1,650

  19.3

  INWARD Ltd. (in the North West)

  1,378

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association (YHDA)

  1,400

  16.4

  West Midlands Development Agency (WMDA)

  1,118.2

  13.1

  Devon and Cornwall Development International (DCDI)

  895

  10.5

  East Midlands

  800

  9.4

  London First Centre

  1,000

  11.7

  West of England Development Agency

  310

  3.6

  Regional Supply Network
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress on the establishment of a regional supply network. [16085]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am pleased to report that the regional supply network, which forms part of my Departments Business Links services, will become operational in April 1995. The network has, with funding from my Department, been established in fulfilment of a commitment in last years competitiveness White Paper, Cm 2563. It will consist of 10 regional supply offices covering England and will complement similar existing operations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The network will:
  help purchasers to find the most competitive sources of supply; provide new business opportunities for competitive suppliers; encourage the spread of best practice, supplier development and local chains;
  highlight current deficiencies in local supplier capabilities, signpost firms to Business Links and other relevant business support organisations which will help to rectify such deficiencies.

  Further information is contained in a leaflet on the regional supply network. I am placing copies in Library of the House.

  Philippines
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the value to British companies of contracts signed following the visit of the Philippines President. [14419]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  During President Ramoss visit, agreements to the value of approximately £700 million were signed with United Kingdom companies, including
  195
  British Gas, Balfour Beatty, GKN, Stramit and GEC Alsthom. UK companies are pursuing a number of other projects in the Philippines and I am confident that following the Presidents successful visit, UK commercial interests in the Philippines will develop further.

  Privatisation
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in respect of each privatisation since 1979, including industries previously located at the Department of Energy,(a) the net equity proceeds to Government as a result of privatisation, (b) the market value at the end of the first day of trading and (c) the current market value. [15349]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 31 October 1994,Official Report, columns 989–90. Information on market values at the end of the first day of trading is not held centrally by my Department. In a number of cases, information on market capitalisation at flotation and movement in share values at the end of the first days trading is contained in the National Audit Office report on the relevant sale, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the consultants, (b) the tasks for which they were employed and (c) the payments made to them from the budget of his Department in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The detailed information cannot be provided except at disproportionate costs. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 10 February 1995,Official Report, column 429.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 567, if he will set out the targets for the different size bands of projects applying for assisted area grants. [14937]

  Mr. Eggar
  Target times for processing applications for regional selective assistance are as follows:

  Application size band

  Per cent.

  Up to £25,000

  80 within 35 working days

  £25,000 to £100,000

  75 within 45 working days

  £100,000 to £1 million

  75 within 60 working days

  £1 million or more

  65 within 100 working days

  These targets are currently under review.

  Channel 5 Television
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in obtaining international clearances for the revised Channel 5 frequency plan; which frequencies have now achieved clearances from which foreign jurisdictions; which are outstanding; and if he expects any impediments to final clearances being achieved by October. [15394]
  196
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am pleased to report that most of the revised Channel 5 transmitter plan has been cleared. The coverage of the service is now around 67 per cent. of the population compared with the base figure of around 50 per cent. which had been cleared as part of the original Channel 5 plan.

  The Radiocommunications Agency has cleared internationally 20 out of 26 proposals put forward by the Independent Television Commission, including major transmitters such as Winter Hill, which will ensure that a major part of the north-west of England, including Manchester and Liverpool, will be able to receive the service. Achievement of the outstanding clearances will increase coverage of Channel 5 to around 70 per cent. of the population.

  The following transmitters which have been fully cleared by all foreign Administrations:

  Location

  Winter Hill

  Channel 48/Horizontal Polarisation

  Croydon

  Channel 37/Horizontal Polarisation

  Sutton Coldfield

  Channel 37/Horizontal Polarisation

  Black Hill

  Channel 37/Horizontal Polarisation

  Burnhope

  Channel 68/Horizontal Polarisation

  Belmont

  Channel 56/Horizontal Polarisation

  Fawley

  Channel 34/Horizontal Polarisation

  Fenham

  Channel 56/Vertical Polarisation

  Tacolneston

  Channel 52/Horizontal Polarisation

  Durris

  Channel 67/Horizontal Polarisation

  Chelmsford

  Channel 63/Horizontal Polarisation

  Perth

  Channel 55/Vertical Polarisation

  Tay Bridge

  Channel 34/Vertical Polarisation

  Plympton

  Channel 30/Vertical Polarisation

  Huntshaw Cross

  Channel 67/Horizontal Polarisation

  Craigkelly

  Channel 48/Horizonal Polarisation

  Mounteagle

  Channel 67/Horizontal Polarisation

  Selkirk

  Channel 52/Horizontal Polarisation

  Cambret Hill

  Channel 37/Horizontal Polarisation

  Oxford

  Channel 49/Horizontal Polarisation

  The following are still under discussion between the Radiocommunications Agency and neighbouring administrations: the transmitters at Black mountain, Londonderry, Presely and Blaen Plwyf are under consideration by the Irish Administration; the Radiocommunications Agency is currently examining a response from the French Administration concerning the proposals for the Mendip and Redruth transmitters.

  It is not possible to predict the outcomes or timing of the outstanding negotiations, although the discussions are taking place in a positive and constructive way.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the period of time by the European Union institutions to pay bills to British companies, with particular reference to small and medium enterprises. [15144]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The United Kingdom Government have not undertaken any assessment of payments by European Commission institutions to British businesses. However, I understand that the European Commission has established a maximum payment period of 60 days and has taken steps to improve compliance with this.
  197
  In addition, the Commission has said that it undertakes regular checks on the payment periods applied by its own departments.

  Electricity Prices
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that Northern Electricity plc misled the Director-General of Electricity Supply as to its true financial position during discussions last year about the appropriate level of electricity pricing; and what consideration is being given to appropriate action by his Department or other authorities to investigate the matters. [15164]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of money spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14620]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Details of my Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in the tables on pages 94 and 97 of my Departments annual report, Cm 2804, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what activities or discussion were forbidden under UN sanctions to the Iraqi-British Interests Group on its recent visit to Iraq.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Any prohibitions under UN sanctions apply to anyone from the United Kingdom visiting Iraq for trade purposes.

PRIME MINISTER

  Objectives
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of their objectives of April 1992 the Government have now achieved; and how many remain. [15354]

  The Prime Minister
  Since April 1992, the Governments policies have laid the foundations for sustained economic growth. Underlying inflation is down to its lowest for a generation, interest rates are among the lowest in the EC, unemployment is down by over 600,000 since its peak, exports are at record levels, and we are attracting more investment from Japan and America than Germany and France combined.

  We have also pressed ahead with our reforms to raise standards in our schools, fight crime, improve the quality of care in the national health service and, with the citizens charter, make the public services more accountable to the taxpayers they serve. Our commitment to continuing improvement in standards in education has been achieved by the national curriculum, extension of objective testing of pupils, inspection of primary as well as secondary schools, continuation of publication of school results, and launch of the Teacher Training Agency. Parental choice
  198
  has been enhanced by the further expansion of the grant-maintained schools and specialist colleges. The national health service is now treating 1 million more patients a year than since before our reforms began; our determination to ensure it is properly funded is borne out by the fact that, for every £1 spent on the service in 1979, over £5 will be spent in 1995–96. Against the backdrop of the largest fall in recorded crime for 40 years, we have introduced a range of measures designed to tilt the balance back in favour of the victims of crime, and ensure that crime does not pay, but criminals do.

  The Government have made significant progress towards achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The ceasefire has now lasted for almost seven months, giving a new basis on which we can take the peace process forward. There has also been considerable success in winning the argument in Europe—especially in our attempts to make the community more open, outward-looking and decentralised.

  The Governments objectives for the future remain as stated in the Gracious Speech on 16 November 1994, Official Report, columns 4–6.

  Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minster 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.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 21 March.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total annual expenditure by the Prime Ministers Office on press and public relations for each year since 1987–88, including the estimated expenditure for 1994–95 and the budgeted expenditure for 1995–96. [14588]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Expenditure on the No. 10 press office for each year since 1987 is as follows. There is no separate expenditure on public relations.

  £000

  Year

  Total excluding superannuation

  2Superannuation

  Total including superannuation

  1987–88

  378

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  419

  n/a

  n/a

  1989–90

  428

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  514

  39

  553

  1991–92

  571

  36

  607

  199

  £000

  Year

  Total excluding superannuation

  2Superannuation

  Total including superannuation

  1992–93

  622

  46

  668

  1993–94

  604

  39

  643

  1994–95

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1995–96

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Outturn figure not yet available.2 Notional superannuation costs were charged from 1990–91.

  n/a=Not applicable.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Administration and Policy Formation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14250]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of the Home Offices running costs and central services spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–298 are contained, respectively, in the tables in annexe 3 and annexe 1 of the Home Office Annual Report, Cm 2808, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nottingham Probation Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Sherwood may expect a reply to his letter dated 22 December 1994 about the Nottingham probation service. [14705]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A reply was sent on 17 March.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main conclusions of the joint inquiry by the football associations of England and Ireland into the violence at the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin on 15 February; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [15436]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that a report has been prepared by the Football Association and that the Football Association of Ireland will be producing a separate report. It is for the FA to decide whether to make its findings public.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that a national database is maintained in regard to those who commit sexual offences against children and young people.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the introduction of a permanent register of convicted paedophiles and sex offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: A comprehensive database, known as Phoenix, which will cover all reportable offences including paedophile and other sex offences, is currently being developed by the Government on behalf of the police service. It will come into service for new offences in the late spring of this
  200
  year, and the transfer of existing records to the new database will be complete by mid-1996. Phoenix is a development of exceptional importance to the police service, and I believe that it will meet many of the concerns which have led to suggestions for a separate register of certain convicted sex offenders.

  Access to Police Records
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to grant Government Departments and agencies direct access to criminal records held on the police national computer for security vetting purposes. [16058]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that limited direct access to the criminal record information held on the police national computer will be allowed to six Departments and agencies. The checks performed under this arrangement will be carried out strictly in accordance with the existing statement of security vetting policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 December,Official Report, columns 764–66. The Departments and agencies, which will be taking up the new service at differing times, are the Ministry of Defence, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—acting also on behalf of BNFL plc, URENCO, URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. and the UK NIREX—the Home Office, and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  The new arrangements will allow these bodies to improve the efficiency of their procedures through direct preliminary checks which would establish whether or not a subject has a criminal record, but would not give them access to the record itself. In the minority of cases where the preliminary search indicates that the subject has a criminal record, the Departments or agencies would continue to ask the national identification service—formerly the national identification bureau—to supply the record itself.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clive Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in relation to Ethiopians seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom. [15331]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  All asylum applications from Ethiopian nationals are considered individually in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February, to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill),Official Report, columns 755–56, how many of those port asylum applicants, refused both asylum and exceptional leave to remain in each year since 1992 but who have not yet departed voluntarily or been removed (a) are currently detained pending the outcome of an appeal or awaiting removal, (b) have been placed on restriction orders or granted temporary admission and (c) are known to have absconded. [14799]
  201
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information available is given in the table:

  Number of applicants

  Position at 16 March 1995

  Year of refusal

  Detained pending outcome of an appeal or awaiting removal

  Granted temporary admission

  Absconded

  1992

  0

  65

  10

  1993

  13

  815

  290

  1994

  78

  3,950

  280

  Total

  91

  4,830

  580

  M11 Link Road Protests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of arrests made to date in connection with protests against the M11 link road; how many were made under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; what were the reasons for the arrests; and what have been the outcomes of these cases. [15336]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Wildlife Sales Offences
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces monitor relevant trade journals to identify potential wildlife sales offences. [15048]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police and is not recorded centrally.

  Road Death Inquests
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many inquests into road deaths have been held in the presence of a jury, in each year from 1978 to 1994; [14856]

  (2) what statistical records his office holds for the length of time elapsing between death on the road and an inquest taking place for each year from 1984 to 1994; [14858]

  (3) how many inquests into road deaths have been held after summary charges, in each year, by county, from 1978 to 1994; [14857]

  (4) how many inquests have been reconvened after a guilty plea in respect of road deaths in the Crown court for each year from 1984 to 1994. [14859]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information collected on deaths reported to coroners is published in an annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest bulletin, Statistics of Death reported by Coroners: England and Wales, 1993, issue 7/94, was published on 21 April 1994 and is available in the Library. Specific information on road deaths is not collected separately.

  Fear of Crime
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent representations he has received from womens organisations on the subject of crime and the fear of crime; [14860]

  (2) if he will give details of meetings he has had with representatives of womens organisations to discuss crime and the fear of crime. [14863]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows.

  On 11 March 1994, the Womens National Commission, an advisory committee to the Government, forwarded a copy of its 1991 recommendations on women in prison, the operation of the criminal justice system and the management of prisons as they affect women in particular, to find out how far current practice reflected what was recommended.

  On 15 March 1994, the Conservative Womens National Committee forwarded recommendations on law and order issues. Matters raised included juvenile crime, media portrayal of crime, drug abuse, police-community partnerships and sentencing and prisons.

  On 14 November 1994, Mothers against Teenage Criminal Hooligans—MATCH—forwarded for comments a survey of the views of some 500 people about youth crime.

  A number of representations have also been received from individuals and organisations working, or experiencing, the problems associated with domestic violence.

  On 15 November 1994 the Minister of State met Mothers Against Murder and Aggression—MAMAA—which was formed in the wake of the Jamie Bulger murder to address issues of abuse and violence against and by children and young people.

  On 7 December 1994 the Home Secretary addressed a plenary meeting of the Womens National Commission. His speech covered juvenile crime, domestic violence and victims and witnesses of crime.

  Police Service Employees
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will give details of the number of(a) women and (b) men employed at each grade within the police service, for each police authority for every year since 1989 with details of their responsibilities. [14862]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the duties to which officers are assigned could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Tables giving the information requested on police ranks have been placed in the Library.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of Asian and Afro-Caribbean officers, both male and female in each police authority, in each year since 1989; and what are the figures as a percentage of officers employed in each area. [14398]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for 1992 and 1993 is provided in the table. Figures for earlier years are not held centrally.
  203

  1992

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total number of police officers

  Number of black officers

  Black officers percentage

  Number of Asian officers

  Asian officers percentage

  Force

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Avon and Somerset

  2,745.00

  316.00

  10.00

  5.00

  0.33

  0.16

  2.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.00

  Bedfordshire

  955.00

  166.00

  13.00

  8.00

  1.16

  0.71

  9.00

  3.00

  0.80

  0.27

  Cambridgeshire

  1,087.00

  150.00

  11.00

  5.00

  0.89

  0.40

  6.00

  0.00

  0.49

  0.00

  Cheshire

  1,670.00

  231.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.05

  0.50

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  City of London

  685.00

  93.00

  6.00

  2.00

  0.77

  0.26

  1.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.00

  Cleveland

  1,317.00

  184.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.00

  9.00

  2.00

  0.60

  0.13

  Cumbria

  1,048.00

  148.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.00

  Derbyshire

  1,604.00

  206.00

  8.00

  2.00

  0.44

  0.11

  16.00

  3.00

  0.88

  0.17

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,578.00

  337.00

  3.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Dorset

  1,154.00

  164.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.15

  0.00

  Durham

  1,245.00

  131.00

  3.00

  1.00

  0.22

  0.07

  1.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.00

  Dyfed-Powys

  848.00

  109.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.10

  0.10

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Essex

  2,552.00

  365.00

  9.00

  1.00

  0.31

  0.03

  9.00

  0.00

  0.31

  0.00

  Gloucestershire

  1,021.00

  127.00

  5.00

  1.00

  0.44

  0.09

  3.00

  0.00

  0.26

  0.00

  Greater Manchester

  6,122.00

  933.00

  106.00

  21.00

  1.50

  0.30

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Gwent

  894.00

  106.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.20

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.20

  0.00

  Hampshire

  2,883.00

  402.00

  6.00

  2.00

  0.18

  0.06

  7.00

  1.00

  0.21

  0.03

  Hertfordshire

  1,430.00

  258.00

  6.00

  1.00

  0.36

  0.06

  3.00

  2.00

  0.18

  0.12

  Humberside

  1,839.00

  194.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.00

  3.00

  0.00

  0.15

  0.00

  Kent

  2,666.00

  440.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.00

  7.00

  2.00

  0.23

  0.06

  Lancashire

  2,813.00

  392.00

  3.00

  3.00

  0.09

  0.09

  14.00

  2.00

  0.44

  0.06

  Leicestershire

  1,601.00

  229.00

  18.00

  2.00

  0.98

  0.11

  19.00

  2.00

  1.04

  0.11

  Lincolnshire

  1,064.00

  127.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.00

  2.00

  1.00

  0.17

  0.08

  Merseyshire

  4,039.00

  614.00

  25.00

  6.00

  0.54

  0.13

  18.00

  1.00

  0.39

  0.02

  Norfolk

  1,290.00

  136.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  North Wales

  1,203.00

  153.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  North Yorkshire

  1,258.00

  150.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.00

  4.00

  0.00

  0.28

  0.00

  Northamptonshire

  1,067.,00

  136.00

  10.00

  2.00

  0.83

  0.17

  6.00

  0.00

  0.50

  0.00

  Northumbria

  3,196.00

  387.00

  3.00

  1.00

  0.08

  0.03

  7.00

  2.00

  0.20

  0.06

  Nottinghamshire

  2,075.00

  246.00

  22.00

  7.00

  0.95

  0.30

  16.00

  2.00

  0.69

  0.09

  South Wales

  2,873.00

  288.00

  18.00

  1.00

  0.57

  0.03

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  South Yorkshire

  2,651.00

  349.00

  18.00

  2.00

  0.60

  0.07

  10.00

  1.00

  0.33

  0.03

  Staffordshire

  1,867.00

  302.00

  18.00

  6.00

  0.,83

  0.28

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Suffolk

  1,091.00

  145.00

  3.00

  2.00

  0.24

  0.16

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.16

  Surrey

  1,435.00

  222.00

  10.00

  1.00

  0.60

  0.06

  4.00

  1.00

  0.24

  0.06

  Sussex

  2,653.00

  326.00

  7.00

  3.00

  0.23

  0.10

  2.00

  1.00

  0.07

  0.034

  Thames Valley

  3,222.00

  541.00

  21.00

  8.00

  0.56

  0.21

  24.00

  4.00

  0.64

  0.11

  Warwickshire

  857.00

  123.00

  0.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.10

  7.00

  2.00

  0.71

  0.20

  West Mercia

  1,804.00

  256.00

  8.00

  2.00

  0.39

  0.10

  3.00

  1.00

  0.15

  0.05

  West Midlands

  5,908.00

  1,052.00

  154.00

  49.00

  2.21

  0.70

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  West Yorkshire

  4,438.00

  629.00

  24.00

  10.00

  0.147

  0.20

  43.00

  5.00

  0.85

  0.10

  Wiltshire

  1,010.00

  157.00

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.17

  7.00

  0.00

  0.60

  0.00

  Provincial total

  85,758.00

  12,020.00

  561.00

  159.00

  0.57

  0.16

  267.00

  40.00

  0.27

  0.04

  Metropolitan Police

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  England and Wales total2

  85,758.00

  12,020.00

  561.00

  159.00

  0.44

  0.13

  267.00

  40.00

  0.21

  0.03

  1 Figures not available centrally.

  2 Excluding the Metropolitan Police.

  1993

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total number of police officers

  Number of black officers

  Black officers percentage

  Number of Asian officers

  Asian officers percentage

  Force

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Avon and Somerset

  2,688.00

  336.00

  13.00

  5.00

  0.43

  0.17

  3.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.00

  Bedfordshire

  994.00

  173.00

  11.00

  6.00

  0.94

  0.51

  7.00

  4.00

  0.60

  0.34

  Cambridgeshire

  1,073.00

  152.00

  8.00

  6.00

  0.65

  0.49

  6.00

  1.00

  0.49

  0.08

  Cheshire

  1,647.00

  226.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.05

  0.05

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  City of London

  677.00

  115.00

  7.00

  2.00

  0.88

  0.25

  1.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.00

  Cleveland

  1,248.00

  166.20

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  12.00

  2.00

  0.85

  0.14

  Cumbria

  1,030.00

  154.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.08

  0.08

  Derbyshire

  1,581.00

  209.00

  6.00

  1.00

  0.34

  0.06

  15.00

  3.00

  0.84

  0.17

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,552.00

  353.00

  4.00

  0.00

  0.14

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Dorset

  1,132.00

  160.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.15

  0.00

  Durham

  1,233.00

  154.00

  3.00

  1.00

  0.22

  0.07

  3.00

  0.00

  0.22

  0.00

  Dyfed-Powys

  815.00

  151.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.10

  0.10

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Essex

  2,548.00

  399.00

  11.00

  2.00

  0.37

  0.07

  10.00

  0.00

  0.34

  0.00

  204 205

  1993

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total number of police officers

  Number of black officers

  Black officers percentage

  Number of Asian officers

  Asian officers percentage

  Force

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Gloucestershire

  1,004.00

  136.00

  5.00

  2.00

  0.44

  0.18

  3.00

  1.00

  0.26

  0.09

  Greater Manchester

  6,058.00

  987.00

  107.00

  22.00

  1.52

  0.31

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Gwent

  877.00

  112.00

  4.00

  0.00

  0.40

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Hampshire

  2,844.00

  426.00

  7.00

  2.00

  0.21

  0.06

  9.00

  1.00

  0.28

  0.03

  Hertfordshire

  1,418.00

  261.00

  4.00

  3.00

  0.24

  0.18

  5.00

  2.00

  0.30

  0.12

  Humberside

  1,817.00

  216.00

  3.00

  0.00

  0.15

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.00

  Kent

  2,691.00

  462.00

  3.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.00

  8.00

  1.00

  0.25

  0.03

  Lancashire

  2,735.00

  402.00

  4.00

  3.00

  0.13

  0.10

  14.00

  2.00

  0.45

  0.06

  Leicestershire

  1,589.00

  248.00

  19.00

  2.00

  1.03

  0.11

  25.00

  2.00

  1.36

  0.11

  Lincolnshire

  1,064.00

  140.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.17

  0.00

  2.00

  2.00

  0.17

  0.17

  Merseyside

  4,006.00

  656.00

  27.00

  8.00

  0.58

  0.17

  20.00

  1.00

  0.43

  0.02

  Norfolk

  1,283.00

  151.10

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  North Wales

  1,184.00

  157.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  North Yorkshire

  1,182.00

  152.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.00

  4.00

  1.00

  0.30

  0.07

  Northamptonshire

  1,044.00

  137.00

  9.00

  2.00

  0.76

  0.17

  7.00

  0.00

  0.59

  0.00

  Northumbria

  3,179.00

  412.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.03

  0.03

  0.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.03

  Nottinghamshire

  2,058.00

  280.50

  21.00

  6.00

  0.90

  0.26

  14.00

  2.00

  0.60

  0.09

  South Wales

  2,854.00

  288.00

  22.00

  1.00

  0.70

  0.03

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  South Yorkshire

  2,630.00

  385.00

  24.00

  7.00

  0.80

  0.23

  9.00

  0.00

  0.30

  0.00

  Staffordshire

  1,871.00

  328.00

  13.00

  4.00

  0.59

  0.18

  7.00

  3.00

  0.32

  0.14

  Suffolk

  1,061.00

  154.00

  4.00

  3.00

  0.33

  0.25

  1.00

  1.00

  0.08

  0.08

  Surrey

  1,422.00

  228.00

  11.00

  1.00

  0.67

  0.06

  6.00

  1.00

  0.36

  0.06

  Sussex

  2,628.00

  349.00

  2.00

  5.00

  0.07

  0.17

  3.00

  1.00

  0.10

  0.03

  Thames Valley

  3,256.00

  567.00

  24.00

  6.00

  0.63

  0.16

  20.00

  5.00

  0.52

  0.13

  Warwickshire

  862.00

  141.00

  1.00

  1.00

  0.10

  0.10

  9.00

  3.00

  0.90

  0.30

  West Mercia

  1,790.00

  266.00

  15.00

  4.00

  0.73

  0.19

  1.00

  0.00

  0.05

  0.00

  West Midlands

  5,833.00

  1,110.95

  81.00

  32.00

  1.17

  0.46

  70.00

  18.00

  1.01

  0.26

  West Yorkshire

  4,344.00

  642.00

  23.00

  10.00

  0.46

  0.20

  42.00

  6.00

  0.84

  0.12

  Wiltshire

  1,018.00

  158.00

  0.00

  2.00

  0.00

  0.17

  7.00

  0.00

  0.60

  0.00

  Provincial total

  84,820.15

  12,700.75

  503.00

  152.00

  0.52

  0.16

  348.00

  65.00

  0.36

  0.07

  Metropolitan Police

  23,445,30

  3,697.15

  215.00

  79.00

  0.79

  0.29

  142.00

  36.00

  0.52

  0.13

  England and Wales total

  108,265.5

  16.397.90

  718.00

  231.00

  0.58

  0.19

  490.00

  101.00

  0.39

  0.08

  Visas
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries from which visitors to the United Kingdom do not require a visa. [14911]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Those other than the following countries or territorial entities:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Bangladesh

  Belarus

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  Bulgaria

  Burkina

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  China

  Comoros

  Congo

  206

  Cuba

  Djibouti

  Egypt

  Equatorial Guinea

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  Gabon

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Haiti

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kirgizstan

  Korea (North)

  Laos

  Lebanon

  Liberia

  Libya

  Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  207

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Romania

  Russia

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome e Principe

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Somalia

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Syria

  Taiwan

  Tajikistan

  Thailand

  Togo

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Uzbekistan

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Zaire

  The territories formerly comprising the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, excluding Croatia and Slovenia

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14239]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of my Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 4 of my Departments annual report, Cm 2809, copies of which are available in the Members Library.

HEALTH

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what studies her Department has made of the side-effects of chorion villus sampling for Downs syndrome; and if she will take steps to ensure that all prospective parents are provided with information on the possibility of abnormalities resulting from the tests; [14455]

  (2) how many CVS tests were provided under the NHS in each of the past five years and at what cost; and if she will list the manufacturers of these tests. [14457]
  208
  Mr. Sackville
  The results of a major Government-funded Medical Research Council clinical trial conducted in a number of international centres and examining the use of chorion villus sampling were published in 1991 and the findings published in The Lancet1, copies of which are available in the Library. This also highlighted the possibility of a risk of limb reduction deformities associated with the procedure. Health professionals involved in conducting CVS would be aware of these findings and therefore in a position to advise parents of the potential risks involved, including that of miscarriage.

  Information is not available centrally about the number or cost of the tests. The procedure involves tests undertaken usually in national health service laboratories, on placental tissue taken from the woman by CVS. There are therefore no manufacturers of these tests.

  1 Medical Research Council European Trial of Chorion Villus Sampling, The Lancet, vol 337: 1491–1499, 22 June 1991.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children with Downs syndrome were born in each of the past 10 years. [14456]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table.

  Notification of babies born with Downs Syndrome in England and Wales, 1984–1993

  Year

  Numbers

  1984

  505

  1985

  442

  1986

  445

  1987

  459

  1988

  428

  1989

  487

  1990

  415

  1991

  440

  1992

  394

  1993

  311

  Data were obtained from the national congenital malformation notification scheme. For the years given, the data were collected for live and stillbirths where the malformation was identified at or within 10 days of birth.

  Independent Living
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will continue to identify an element for support of independent living within the revenue support grant for local authorities from 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [15053]

  Mr. Bowis
  Currently, an element of the special transitional grant for community care is identified as relating to the former independent living fund. It is not separately ring-fenced and local authorities are free to use it for any community care service. Whether former independent living fund resources will continue to be separately identified after the special transitional grant ends has not yet been determined.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will encourage and fund research into the therapeutic use of cannabis with double blind trials designed to established the efficacy or otherwise of this form of treatment. [15069]
  209
  Mr. Bowis
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals. As for any other unlicensed product, a sponsor seeking a product licence for cannabis would need to present supporting data to the Medicines Control Agency, which would evaluate any application made to it in the normal way.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the adequacy of the provision of nursing homes for poor elderly people; and what information she has on the equivalent provision in each of the other European Union states. [14914]

  Mr. Bowis
  Matters of quality and quantity of local nursing homes, irrespective of the income levels of residents, are for local commissioning authorities. We do not hold information on nursing homes in other European countries centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for granting prescription charge exemptions to people with splenectomies who require prophylactic doses of penicillin. [15372]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  General Practitioner Trainees
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applicants there were per GP trainee post(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) broken down by each FHSA in the current year and for each of the last 10 years. [15364]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Smoking
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to reduce levels of cigarette smoking among people on low incomes. [15380]

  Mr. Sackville
  The White Paper The Health of the Nation sets a target of 20 per cent. for adults smoking by the year 2000. In view of their higher smoking rates, it is clearly essential to reach people on low incomes if this is to be achieved.

  This will be done through the comprehensive programme set out in the White Paper and the action plan Smoke Free for Health including health education, action on price, advice from general practitioners and other health professionals and proper controls on advertising and promotion.

  Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Consultation on Changes to Health Services
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to reduce the requirement on health boards for formal consultation when major changes to health services are planned. [15362]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects consultations with representatives of the Association of Optometrists on the GOS sight test fee for 1995–96 to begin. [15873]

  Mr. Malone
  Consultations on the 1995–96 national health service sight test fee will begin shortly with the Optometric Fees Review Committee, which represents the optometric profession.

  Births, Marriages and Deaths
  Mr. John Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she intends to make to the representations to her from the London borough of Lambeth in relation to the reform of the system for registering births, marriages and deaths. [15137]

  Mr. Sackville
  The London borough of Lambeth has been advised that the Government intend to introduce legislation to implement the proposals in the White Paper entitled Registration: proposals for change, Cm 939, when parliamentary time allows.

  Emergency Services, Carshalton and Wallington
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the provision of accident and emergency services at hospitals serving the constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. [15268]

  Mr. Sackville
  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority is responsible for purchasing accident and emergency services for Carshalton and Wallington residents. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Harry Cowd, chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish her response of the Wilson report on patients complaints. [15829]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published today the Department of Healths response to the report of the review committee on the national health service complaints procedures, chaired by Professor Wilson, vice-chancellor of Leeds university, in a document Acting on Complaints. Copies of this document will be placed in the Library.

  Measles Rubella Immunisation Campaign
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of immunisation coverage has been achieved by the measles rubella campaign; and what impact this has had on the number of cases of measles. [15853]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Very high immunisation coverage has been achieved by the campaign so far, and efforts are still being made to reach those children who have not yet been immunised. Coverage in England is 92
  211
  per cent. overall; 77 per cent. of districts have immunised at least 90 per cent. of children, with 22 per cent. achieving coverage of 95 per cent. or more; 94 per cent. of school children in Northern Ireland have been immunised and 88 per cent. in Scotland and Wales.

  The campaign has led to a fall in measles notifications and in confirmed measles cases. There were 1,774 measles notifications in England and Wales in January and February 1995 compared with 2,476 in the previous two months. In Scotland, where the campaign is not yet complete, there were 283 cases in January and February compared with 437 in the previous two months. About half of the suspected measles cases in England and Wales have been investigated with laboratory tests. There were only nine confirmed measles cases in January and one in February; one further case, a contact of the February case, is being investigated and may be confirmed. This compares with 101 confirmed cases in the previous two months. There have been no confirmed cases in Northern Ireland this year.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the yearly cost of a psychiatric bed in the national health service for each of the last five years. [14820]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is as follows:

  Average yearly cost per patient for Psychiatric specialities

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Directly managed units and national health service trusts—England

  37,755.60

  41,960.40

  43,924.10

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of regional, district and special health authorities for the London postgraduate hospitals and NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  2. Figures prior to 1991–92 are not comparable with later years because there were changes in accounting practice and included only direct costs whereas figures from 1991–92 include overheads and capital charges.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Non-attenders

  5,068,256

  5,105,459

  5,188,838

  Total appointments

  42,009,254

  42,632,497

  43,421,464

  Proportion of patients who did not attend

  12.1 per cent.

  12.0 per cent.

  11.9 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Includes patients referred by a general practitioner or another consultant.

  2. Excludes patients who gave advance warning of their non-attendance.

  Source:

  Outpatient and Ward Attenders, England, published annually.

  Hostels
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health (1) what account has been taken in drawing up her proposals for amending regulations concerning hostels accommodating people aged 16 to 25 years of the conclusions of investigations into where young people leaving care have been subject to abuse. [14789]

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role is currently played by the social services inspectorate in terms of establishing whether there are in any particular area reasons for the continued direct provision of local authority part III accommodation. [14707]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of people employed in care homes provided under the National Assistance Act 1948 in each year since 1979. [14706]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally relates to whole-time equivalent numbers of staff directly employed by local authority social services departments in residential care homes. Figures for 1979 to 1993 are published in the 1992 and 1993 editions of the Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions during each year since 1984 it has been necessary to place residents in local authority part III accommodation as a direct result of the closure for whatever reason of a private voluntary care home. [14775]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Out-Patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients failed to attend out-patient appointments in England in each year since 1992; and if she will make a statement. [15110]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is given in the table. Guidance on reducing non-attendance has already been issued to the national health service. This will be supported by further guidance on reducing waiting times. We expect the introduction of the new patients charter standard for out-patient appointments will further encourage purchasers and providers to tackle the problem of non-attenders.

  (2) what mechanisms will exist under the amended regulations governing hostels for people aged 16 to 24 years for (a) checking the suitability of those running hostels and (b) checking the suitability of the premises. [14790]

  Mr. Bowis
  The proposals, currently being consulted on, take account of other provisions of the Children Act
  213
  and regulations which will adequately safeguard the welfare of the young people.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a breakdown by member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of the sums identified in its account for 1993–94 as(a) £55,546 for remuneration of authority members and fees paid to members including the chairman and (b) £30,385 paid to members in travel and subsistence. [15438]

  Mr. Sackville
  Payments made to members of the authority in 1993–94 are as shown in the table:

  Fees £

  Prof. Sir C. Campbell (Chairman)

  8,214.00

  Lady Diana Brittan (Deputy Chairman)

  5,304.00

  Prof. R. J. Berry

  3,682.00

  Prof. I. Cooke

  1,268.00

  Prof. A. Cox

  3,036.00

  Jane Denton

  4,828,00

  Liz Forgan

  509.00

  Mrs. Joan Harbison

  2,939.00

  Prof. S. Hillier

  5,578.00

  R. Holloway

  1,393.00

  Penelope Keith

  1,250.00

  Mrs. Angela Mays

  4,029.00

  Dr. Anne McLaren

  1,137.00

  Dr. Jeannette Naish

  1,515.00

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger

  2,792.00

  Prof. R. Shaw

  1,003.00

  David Shilson

  1,905.00

  Prof. R. Snowden

  1,503.00

  Lady Julia Tugendhat

  1,408.00

  Christine Walby

  250.00

  Prof. D. Whittingham

  2,003.00

  Total members fees

  55,546.00

  Note:

  1. Expenses for travelling cost, on average were £1,446.90 per member per year.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the consistency of the impartiality of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority with her Departments target that in the current financial year 70 per cent. of its income should be derived from licence fees. [15440]

  Mr. Sackville
  Parliament decided that a proportion of the cost of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authoritys licensing function should be recovered by charging fees to licensed centres. The principle under which the costs of regulation are met by bodies such as the authority is well established. Unlike other similar organisations, the authority does not recover all of its costs through fees; the taxpayer currently meets 30 per cent. of its costs. The licence fees charged are determined by the authority with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the background to the circumstances identified in the foreword to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority account for 1993–94 and which led to(a) the proposal not to renew the licence of one centre and (b) revoke the licence of a linked centre; what was the outcome of those proposals; and what was the legal cost. [15437]
  214
  Mr. Sackville
  Licensing decisions under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act are matters for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The authority decided in June 1994 not to renew the licence of one centre and to revoke the licence of a linked centre. The circumstances of this case cannot be disclosed because the authoritys decisions are at present the subject of an appeal. The legal costs of this case are on-going.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a breakdown of the different professional fees which gave rise to the total expenditure of £89,763 on such fees identified in the annual account 1993–94 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [15439]

  Mr. Sackville
  Professional and administrative fees set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authoritys accounts for 1993–94 comprise:

  £

  Legal costs re licensing problems

  72,663.50

  Payroll costs

  913.18

  Accountants

  6,979.93

  Miscellaneous (computer consultants, surveyors fees for rates appeal, legal fees for new lease, personnel consultants, refund on audit fees)

  9,206.63

  89,763.24

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Staff (Job Offers)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney General how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1st February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  Owing to a clerical error in my answer of 14 June 1994,Official Report, column 368, an incorrect date was given for the reported approach at the Serious Fraud Office at grade 6 level under section 14 of the rules. The date should have been 1992 not 1993.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the amount of money spent on central administration and policy formulations by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14621]

  Mr. Newton
  Details of my Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years in question are contained in the relevant report of expenditure plans,
  215
  Cm. 2820, page 102 a copy of which is available in the Members Library.

DEFENCE

  Weapons Establishments Sites
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the licensing of atomic weapons establishments sites; and if he will make a statement. [15649]

  Mr. Freeman
  Agreement has been reached between the Government, the Health and Safety Executives nuclear installations inspectorate and Hunting-BRAE Ltd., the operating contractor of AWE, that the AWE sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield should be licensed during 1997 under the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Work has already started on achieving this.

  Pilot Training
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many multi-engine pilots are trained each year by the RAF to operational conversion unit input standards; for what reason a contract for training six such pilots is being placed within the commercial sector, as set out in Future Purchase LC1/0012; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The current RAF requirement is to train 61 multi-engine pilots to operational conversion unit input standards each year.

  The defence costs study identified a number of ways in which flying training could be carried out more cost-effectively; for example, by the increased use of civilian instructors and contractors. The study concluded that multi-engine pilot training was an area where commonality of syllabus existed between the military and civil sector, and proposed that consideration should be given to transferring this part of RAF flying training to a civilian flying training school. My Department therefore intends to place a contract to train six RAF multi-engine pilots with the civil sector to assess the viability of this strategy.

  Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Departments police fraud squad has examined the placing of shipping contracts in the period 1980 to 1990; and if he will make a statement. [14409]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence police fraud squad investigated between 1988 and 1990 allegations relating to the placement of Ministry of Defence shipping contracts. The investigation was inconclusive, however; no criminal charges were brought, and the case is now closed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Departments police fraud squad is currently taking in investigating claims of fraud during the chartering of shipping in the Gulf War; and what actions are being taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence police fraud squad is investigating a number of matters arising from the chartering of shipping during the Gulf war. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces 216
  said in his written answers on 9 March, Official Report, column 349, some of these remain the subject of civil or criminal action.

  Gordon Foxley
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the total value of procurement orders which were not given to British defence manufacturers as a result of the activities of Gordon Foxley. [14411]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to say with any certainty what impact Foxleys corrupt activities in the field of fuse manufacture had on British defence manufacturing industry.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is still investigating the extent of the fraud carried out by Gordon Foxley; and if he will make a statement. [14410]

  Mr. Freeman
  Investigations into Gordon Foxleys activities are continuing. Part 5 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the risk of fraud in defence procurement—HC 258 Session 1994–95—published on 10 March 1995, contains a full account of my Departments investigations to date.

  Biological Weapons
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the continued existence of biological weapons in the sea surrounding the British Isles following the end of the second world war; how many biological weapons remain deposited in the sea; what types of weapons are involved; in what locations they are; when the weapons deposited were last inspected; what evidence there is of leakage; and what steps he is taking to ascertain the circumstances of their disposal. [14406]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no knowledge of any biological weapons being dumped in the sea surrounding the British Isles.

  Troop Exchange Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart concerning the troop exchange programme between the United Kingdom and Australia; and if he will make a statement. [14405]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions.

  Housing Stock (Privatisation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the role of NatWest Markets in the development of proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock; [15486]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, whether he will state the possibilities under consideration by his Department for transferring the married quarters estate to the private sector; and if he will make a statement; [15487]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing

  217
  stock, what proposals he has considered for the duration of leasehold to be held by his Department following the privatisation of his Departments housing stock; [15474]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, what provision he has made for the protection of (a) the welfare and (b) the rights of tenancy of service men and women in developing proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock; [15477]

  (5) if all moneys accrued from the privatisation of his Departments housing stock will remain within the Departments budget; [15478]

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, what is his estimate for consultancy and legal fees for the completion of proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock; [15480]

  (7) when he expects to announce proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock; [15481]

  (8) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, if proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock will be open to consultation by members of the armed services and other interested parties; [15482]

  (9) pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, what assessment he has made of potential security risks in considering proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock. [15483]

  Mr. Soames
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 303, we intend to develop proposals for the possible transfer of the married quarters estate to the private sector, on the basis of initial work undertaken for us last autumn by NatWest Markets. We are close to completing the competitive selection of financial advisers to assist us in this process. Our consideration of the possibilities for such a transfer is still at an early stage, and a good deal of further development and evaluation is needed. It would therefore be premature at this stage to speculate as to what proposals may emerge from this work, what their details might be, what further independent professional advice might be required to assist the development of these proposals, and what the financial and other implications of such proposals may prove to be. We envisage that we will be in a position to make a further statement on these issues in the second half of the year, and any proposals which we may bring forward in due course will be the subject of appropriate consultation. In the course of our on-going consideration of the possibilities, we shall continue to pay particular attention to the operational and security requirements of the services, and to the welfare and interests of service personnel and their families.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of urgent and unavoidable repairs to be made to his Departments housing stock; and how much has been spent on urgent and unavoidable repairs in each of the last 10 years. [15475]

  Mr. Soames
  No central record is kept of this information, but the defence housing executive will take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of the married quarters estate from 1 April, and the cost of 218
  urgent and unavoidable repairs will be met from within its overall budget. We expect that the improved housing management for which the executive is being established will in due course reduce the incidence of requirements for such repairs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 721–23, regarding his Departments housing stock, what estimate he has made of the financial value of his Departments housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [15476]

  Mr. Soames
  The value which might be realised in any transfer of the married quarters estate to the private sector will depend on a range of factors, which we will be able to determine only as detailed proposals are developed.

  David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of Mr. David Hart in the development and execution of proposals for the privatisation of his Departments housing stock. [15485]

  Mr. Soames
  Mr. David Hart is one of several independent advisers who have contributed to the development of proposals for the married quarters estate. His involvement has been, and continues to he, very valuable.

  Budget Reductions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of future reductions in his Departments budget. [15479]

  Mr. Soames
  The latest plans for the defence budget ensure that British forces will continue to be able to fulfil their wide range of tasks with improved capability. In addition they provide sufficient resources to meet the costs defence will face in moving to the new smaller and more efficient support structures arising from the defence costs study.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 609, in which cities the memoranda of understanding with Indonesia were signed, of September 1983, March 1984, April 1986 and November 1991, and in each case who were the signatories.

  Mr. Freeman
  All of the memoranda of understanding referred to were signed in Jakarta by representatives of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and Her Majestys Government.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain and evaluate the report to the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs of the United States Senate by the United States General Accounting Office on outstanding questions on possible exposure to reproductive toxicants of the allied forces during the Gulf war, in the report coded GAO/PTMD 93.30, dated August 1994. [14582]

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of this report was obtained shortly after its publication in the United States and was reviewed by scientific and medical specialists within my
  219
  Department, as is all material relating to the alleged Gulf war syndrome.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates would be the cost to the Exchequer if the widow of a service man, whom she married after he had left the service, was paid a pension relating to his years of service for marriages before 1978. [14395]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of the number of marriages which were contracted before 1978 by former service men after their retirement, and it is not possible, therefore, to provide an estimate of the cost of awarding pensions to their widows in such cases.

  Female Crews
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many sea-going vessels of the Royal Navy have undergone internal refitting to accommodate female crew members; and how many berths were provided and at what total cost in the last five years. [14910]

  (2) how many sea-going vessels of the Royal Navy have had internal alterations made to remove accommodation designed for female members of crews; and what is the number of berths removed and at what total cost in the last five years. [14908]

  Mr. Soames
  Over the last five years, 36 Royal Navy ships and five Royal Fleet Auxiliaries have been converted to accommodate female personnel. This has resulted in 1,313 berths becoming available for female personnel. All conversion work has been carried out as part of major refit programmes and costs of this specific work are not separately identified. In the same period, none has undergone any reversion work.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14247]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of defence operating costs for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 4 of my Departments annual report, Cm 2801, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of(a) service personnel and (b) civilians employed at each Ministry of Defence establishment in Cornwall for the last year for which figures are available. [15031]

  Mr. Soames
  While it is not my Departments policy to give the number of employees at individual establishments, at 1 July last year there were 3,904 service and 611.5 full-time equivalent civilian personnel employed in the county of Cornwall.

  Service Housing, Cornwall, South-East
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of Ministry of Defence housing 220
  units of accommodation for each location in the Cornwall, South-East parliamentary constituency; and how many are currently unoccupied, giving the reasons for their non-occupation. [15032]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 December last year, my Department owned 199 houses in the Cornwall, south-east constituency, of which 10 were vacant. Of the vacant properties, six were allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly and four were undergoing works. All are located at Torpoint.

  Naval Training
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the detailed arrangements for the transfer of Royal Navy sea training from Portland to Plymouth in September. [15033]

  Mr. Soames
  Operational sea training will end at Portland on 19 July 1995. Flag officer sea training will then move his organisation to Plymouth, where his headquarters will be located in HMS Drake. Full operations should start on 11 September 1995.

TRANSPORT

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14251]

  Mr. Norris
  Details of my Departments expenditure on central administration for the years 1989–90 to 1997–298 are contained in figure 2 of my Departments annual report, column 2806, copies of which are available in the Members Library. We cannot separately identify the costs of policy formulation.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging the inclusion in the driving test of a test of the ability to use a mobile telephone safely while the vehicle is moving as a condition of being allowed to do this; and if he will make a statement. [15345]

  Mr. Norris
  We have received no such representations.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many road accidents in the past year the driver of a vehicle involved was using a mobile telephone at the time of the accident. [15344]

  Mr. Norris
  This information could not be obtained other than at disproportionate cost.

  Olympic Airways
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 30 January,Official Report, column 484, regarding Olympic Airways flight DA265 of 7 January, if it is intended to prosecute or penalise Olympic Airways and the pilot. [15209]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulatory responsibility for Olympic Airways rests with the Greek Civil Aviation Authority, to which the UK Civil Aviation Authority passed an
  221
  information copy of the UK air traffic control occurrence report.

  Highlands and Islands Airports
  Sir Russel Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many take-offs and landings there have

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Arrival

  Departure

  Arrival

  Departure

  Arrival

  Departure

  Benbecula

  1,671

  1,669

  1,639

  1,638

  1,956

  1,952

  Inverness

  13,910

  13,792

  13,600

  13,596

  11,964

  11,958

  Islay

  1,165

  1,186

  1,037

  1,039

  1,154

  1,155

  Kirkwall

  7,018

  7,011

  6,415

  6,413

  5,910

  5,915

  Stornoway

  3,680

  3,675

  3,427

  3,427

  3,535

  3,531

  Sumburgh

  14,121

  14,106

  13,773

  13,760

  13,984

  13,982

  Tiree

  480

  485

  453

  453

  608

  609

  Wick

  3,175

  3,181

  3,267

  3,262

  3,004

  3,003

  1Provisional figures

  Private Security Guards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to date and what is the current cost per month, of his Departments and the Highways Agencys use of private security guards; and if he will give a breakdown of those costs per road scheme or project.

  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. Harry Cohen, dated 22 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 has been the total cost to date, and what is the current cost per month, of his Departments and the Highways Agencys use of private security guards; and if he will give a breakdown of those costs per road scheme or project.
  The following table gives the information; the figures have been rounded. The ongoing spend is, of course, dependent on the level of future protest action.

  £

  Road scheme

  Estimated expenditure to date

  Estimated ongoing monthly spend

  A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road

  10,000,000

  300,000

  A4/A6

  2,000,000

  50,000

  Batheaston-Swainswick

  Bypass

  A30 Honiton-Exeter

  175,000

  25,000

  M3 Bar

  4,000,000

  Scheme completed

  End-Compton

  M65 Blackburn

  2,000,000

  200,000

  Southern Bypass

  Total of all above

  18,175,000

  575,000

  I hope this is helpful.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost of a journey on the royal train in 1993–94. [14727]
  222
  been at Highlands and Islands airports in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures for annual aircraft transport movements at the Highlands and Islands airports for the past three years are as follows:

  Mr. Watts
  In 1993–94 the royal train was used on 95 days. On this basis, the average cost per journey was £19,101. In addition, related British Transport police security costs totalled £634,988.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list full details of all inspections undertaken by the Marine Safety Agency of roll-on roll-off ferries using United Kingdom ports in the last 12 months, including the date of inspection, name of the ship, details of defects and remedial action. [15117]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member. Copies of the tables referred to will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 22 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the inspections undertaken on roll-on roll-off (ro-ro) ferries.
  A list showing the name of the ship and the date and place of inspection of foreign flagged ro-ro cargo ships and ro-ro passenger ferries inspected by the Marine Safety Agency in the last twelve months is attached (Table 1). A separate list containing the same information on Red Ensign ro-ro passenger ships is also provided (Table 2). The Marine Safety Agency conducted an inspection campaign on ro-ro ships calling at UK ports following the sinking of the Estonia and the details of the inspections are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 attached.
  Provision of the details of defects found during these inspections would, we estimate, result in a document of 400–500 pages, and could not be provided other than at disproportionate cost. A list of any deficiencies found during an inspection is left on board the ship and it is the responsibility of the Master to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken. Serious deficiencies resulting in the detention of a ro-ro passenger ferry were found in only one case in the past twelve months. Details of any ro-ro cargo ships detained can be found in the lists of ships under detention in UK ports which have been published each month by the Marine Safety Agency since June 1994.

  A253
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it is now intended that construction of(a) the dual carriageway of the A253 from the end of the Thanet Way-Monkton roundabout—to the Prospect roundabout and (b) the dual carriageway of the A253 between the Prospect roundabout and the Lord of the Manor roundabouts will commence. [14864]

  Mr. Norris
  These projects are part of the Kent county councils Thanet Way improvement scheme designed to improve access to and through north Kent, with particular benefits for Thanet. My Department is supporting the Thanet Way scheme, which will cost well over £100 million, through transport supplementary grant. I understand that Kent expects to begin work on the first of the sections referred to early next financial year. The second of the sections referred to is less far advanced: the county council expects to be promoting the scheme at the Thanet local plan inquiry during this year.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the recent circumstances in which an airliner approaching Heathrow suffered a malfunctioning of its computer system which gives guidance of the flight path, route of approach, correct speed and angle of descent; and if he will make a statement. [15123]

  Mr. Norris
  The circumstances surrounding this incident are set out in the air accident investigation branchs bulletin No. 3/95, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The AAIB bulletin makes a safety recommendation relating to the Airbus A340 flight management guidance system and the fuel management system. While the safety recommendation is addressed initially to the joint aviation authorities, it is also being considered by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much publicly financed investment in the railways has increased since 1987; and what effect this has had on the quantity of new rolling stock, track and signalling. [15269]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1987–88, publicly financed rail investment totalled £693 million, equivalent to £993 million in 1994–95 prices. In 1994–95, publicly financed rail investment is expected to total around £900 million. In addition we expect some £100 million of privately financed investment to be undertaken this year.

  The table compares the level of investment in 1987–88 with the level in each subsequent year.

  Investment £ million 1994–95 prices

  Per cent. change on 1987–88

  1987–88

  993

  —

  1988–89

  977

  -1.6

  1989–90

  1,119

  +12.7

  1990–91

  1,216

  +22.5

  1991–92

  1,442

  +45.2

  224

  Investment £ million 1994–95 prices

  Per cent. change on 1987–88

  1992–93

  1,552

  +56.3

  1993–94

  1,188

  +19.6

  1994–95

  c 1,000

  +0.7

  Over this period, at todays prices, £2,765 million has been invested in new rolling stock. Since the mid-1980s nearly 4,000 coaches, locomotives and other passenger vehicles have been delivered—over a quarter of the whole fleet. Some £1,448 million has been invested in track renewals and £1,401 million in signalling and related track projects.

  Privatisation
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in respect of each privatisation since 1979(a) the net equity proceeds to Government as a result of privatisation, (b) the market value at the end of the first day of trading and (c) the current market value. [15350]

  Mr. Norris
  For those privatisations where the Department acted as vendor, the proceeds to Government were as follows:

  Company

  Net equity proceeds to Government (£ million)

  Associated British Ports

  96.4

  British Airways

  853.0

  British Airports Authority

  1,181.6

  DVOIT (the former IT arm of DVLA)

  3.7

  National Freight Consortium

  5.0

  Information on the current and past values of private companies is not held by this Department.

  Crime (International Air Space and Waters)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of national and international law dealing with crimes on board aircraft flying through international air space; [15061]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of national and international law dealing with crimes on board ships in international waters. [15060]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Concern has recently been expressed that in some circumstances aircrew and passengers may be left without effective legal protection where offences are committed on board foreign-registered aircraft outside United Kingdom air space which subsequently land in this country. We are currently considering whether the problems which have been identified can be overcome, and we expect to discuss the matter shortly with the Board of Airline Representatives of the UK.

  Similar concern has not, however, been raised in relation to offences committed on board ships in international waters, and the Government have not been given reason to believe that the law in this area is inadequate. UK courts have jurisdiction over offences committed on board all British ships in international

  225
  waters, and also over offences committed by British passengers on foreign ships.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage increase in council tax bills for each band of property under each authority for 1995.

  Mr. Curry
  The average council tax for band C, two adult dwellings in England in 1995–96 is £543. This is before any reductions for council tax benefit and transitional relief, and represents an increase of 5.3 per cent. on 1994–95 levels.

  Shire areas are showing the lowest increases, with an average 4.5 per cent. rise on last year.

  In London, the average council tax for band C is £512, an increase of 7.8 per cent. on last year. Metropolitan areas have set band C council taxes at £605, 5.8 per cent. higher than in 1994–95.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a table showing the band C council tax for each authority in England for 1995–96, and the percentage increase from 1994–95.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the band D council tax for 1995–96 for each local authority in England. [14612]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation, in each year since 1992 in(a) England and (b) each English housing authority. [14712]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Estimates of the average number of households that had been placed temporarily in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities in England through administering the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 are given below:

  1992: 10,430

  1993: 6,550

  1994: 4,740

  The number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had fallen to 4,330 households at 31 December 1994, some 12 per cent. fewer than a year earlier and 68 per cent. below the peak level at the end of September 1991. This confirms that local authorities are heeding the Governments advice to use other forms of temporary accommodation wherever possible.

  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the information as reported by each local authority in England for each year from 1992 to 1994.

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, columns 757–58, which national journals are checked by his Department for any potential offences
  226
  relating to the sale of birds listed in (a) appendix I of CITES and (b) annexe CI of EC regulation 3626/82; [15052]

  (2) how many potential offences his Department has identified in the national trade journals in each of the last three years involving birds listed in appendix I of CITES and (b) annexe CI of EC regulation 3626/82; and how many of these have been passed to the police to investigate; [15038]

  (3) in respect of the sale of Livingstones Turacos, how many specimens of this have been advertised for sale in the trade journals his Department monitors during the last four years; and how many cases were passed to the police to investigate. [15038]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department monitors four trade journals for potential offences relating to the sale of birds. These are two weekly titles—Cage and Aviary Birds and Exchange and Mart—and two monthly journals—Bird Keeper and the magazine of the Parrot Society.

  Prior to November 1994, my Department kept no detailed records of cases resulting from monitoring journals. However, a substantial number of potential offences were identified and pursued, and eight cases were passed to the police between January 1992 and October 1994. Since November 1994, 26 potential sales offences have been identified and nine cases have been passed to the police to investigate, including one relating to the sale of a Livingstones Turaco.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, columns 757–58, how his Department ensures that an exemption issued to sell a bird listed in appendix I of CITES or annexe C1 of EC regulation 3626/82 relates to the individual specimen in question; and what proportion of bird species listed in appendix I of CITES or annexe C1 of EC regulation 3626/82 his Department requires to be statutorily ringed or marked in order to be sold; [15050]

  (2) what steps his Department takes to verify the origin and date of acquisition of the specimens and if the birds have been captive bred when considering applications for individual sales exemptions to sell birds listed in appendix I of CITES or annexe C1 of EC regulation 3626/82; [15051]

  (3) how his Department establishes whether a vendor has any convictions under wildlife legislation when considering an application for an individual sales exemption to sell birds listed in appendix I of CITES or annexe C1 of EC regulation 3626/82. [15049]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Statutory provisions to register with the Department and ring birds kept in captivity apply to some 5 per cent. of the species listed in appendix I of CITES or annexe C1 of EC regulation 3626/82.

  While there is no statutory requirement to ring appendix I or annexe C1 species specifically for the purpose of sale, any sales exemption for a species subject to the registration and ringing requirements would normally require the bird to be ringed in accordance with the statutory provisions. Individual sales exemptions for species not subject to the ringing requirements also contain information that enables the specimen to be identified, including any ring number.
  227
  When submitting applications for sales exemptions, applicants must provide full details of the specimen, including origin and details of acquisition. Where appropriate, they have to supply details of any convictions under wildlife legislation. They are also required to sign a declaration that the information provided is correct and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

  Any areas of doubt about the information provided would be followed up by the Department. The Departments wildlife inspectorate also has powers to inspect premises to ensure that conditions attached to sales exemptions have been met.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which statutory agencies have authorised persons as defined by the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulation 1985. [15040]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985, the Secretary of State for the Environment has authorised all members of my Departments wildlife inspectorate and certain named police officers. In addition, Her Majestys Customs and Excise has the power, under paragraph 2 of the regulations, to authorise persons.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been heard in each of the last five years by his Department; and how many have succeeded. [14870]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. Shepley to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 21 March 1995:
  Parliamentary Question Number 1730/94/95
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about the number of planning appeals that have been dealt with in England in each of the last five years; and how many have succeeded.
  The information requested is set out in the table below:

  Planning appeals: England

  Year

  Number decided

  Number allowed

  1989/90

  26,481

  8,852

  1990/91

  26,393

  8,871

  1991/92

  22,553

  7,590

  1992/93

  17,832

  5,979

  1993/94

  14,113

  4,975

  1994/951

  8,733

  2,962

  1 From 1 April 1994 to 31 December 1994.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 264, if he will name the local authorities which own the zoos listed. [15171]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  According to our latest information, the zoos and the local authorities that own them are as follows:

  Abbey Gardens Zoo—Borough of St. Edmundsbury;

  Animal World, Bolton—Bolton MBC;

  Battersea Park Childrens Zoo—London Borough of Wandsworth;

  228

  Birmingham Nature Centre—Birmingham City Council;

  Blackpool Municipal Zoological Gardens—Blackpool BC;

  Aquarium, Bolton—Bolton MBC;

  Butterfly World, Bolton—Bolton MBC;

  Clissold Park—London Borough of Hackney;

  Crystal Palace Park Zoo—London Borough of Bromley;

  Harewood Bird Garden—Leeds City Council;

  Lotherton Hall Bird Garden and Deer Park—Leeds City Council;

  Newquay Zoo—Restormel BC;

  Pudsey Park—Leeds City Council;

  Roundhay Park—Leeds City Council;

  Sir George Staunton Country Park—Borough of Havant;

  Stewart Park—Middlesborough BC;

  War Memorial Park Aviaries and Pets Corner—City of Coventry.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14249]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of my Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 7 of my Departments annual report for 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Short-term Prisoners (Housing)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he is issuing to local authorities following cuts in housing benefit for short-term prisoners; [14823]

  (2) what financial provision is being made to local authorities to provide for funding homes for released short-term prisoners and their children following housing benefit reductions. [14824]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Where a person released from prison is homeless and in priority need a local authority has a duty, under part III of the Housing Act 1985, to ensure that accommodation is available for his occupation. My Department is discussing with the Department of Social Security the possible financial effects of the changes in housing benefit for prisoners serving longer than 13 weeks.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Social Security since his proposals to reduce income support for mortgage interest about the policy of insurance companies with respect to the payment of mortgage interest in respect of unemployment due to illness caused by exposure to radiation; [14822]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the nuclear industry regarding the policy of insurance companies with respect to the payment of mortgage interest if a person is unemployed because of illness due to radioactivity. [14821]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None.

  Local Government Commission
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his response to the Local Government Commissions final recommendations for Staffordshire. [14555]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a statement to Parliament on Tuesday 21 March,Official Report, column 145, that we have accepted the Local Government Commissions recommendation of a unitary authority for Stoke-on-Trent with the two-tier system of local government remaining in the rest of Staffordshire.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the tender documents issued by the Government Office for London for research projects, the contractors to whom research work has been awarded, the budget for each research project and the anticipated completion and publication date of each research project. [15034]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government office for London does not have its own research budget but draws upon the resources available to the research programmes of the Departments of Environment and Transport. To date, the following contracts have been let on behalf of GOL. In most cases, decisions about publication will be made when the projects are complete.

  1. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  London Scenarios Tests: Economic Evaluation of Transport and Land use

  Name of contractor: Marcial Echenique and Partners

  Budget for research project: £16,000 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: April 1995.

  2. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Role of London in the United Kingdom Economy: A Planning Perspective

  Name of contractor: Arup Economics and Planning

  Budget for research project: £89,000 from DoE

  Estimated completion date: June 1995

  3. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Londons Urban Environment

  Name of contractor: Building Design Partnership

  Budget for research project: £65,095 from DoE

  Estimated completion date: June 1995

  4. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  London Statistical Digest

  Name of contractor: Business Strategies Limited and Rangecroft North Publishing

  Budget for research project: £83,200 from DOE

  Estimated completion date: June 1995

  5. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Trip Generation: Relationship between trip making and land use

  Name of contractor: Transport Research Laboratory

  Budget for research project: £360,000 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: April 1996

  6. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Analysis of London Area Transport Survey

  Name of contractor: Transport Research Laboratory

  Budget for research project: £75,000 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: September 1995

  7. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Docklands Impact Study: Transport infrastructure

  Name of contractor: Transport Research Laboratory

  Budget for research project: £35,000 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: April 1995

  230
  8. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Forecasting Employment in London and the South East (Stage 2)

  Name of contractor: Cambridge Econometrics/Oxford Economic Forecasting/Centre for Economic and Business Research

  Budget for research project: £5,300 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: Completed February 1995

  9. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Evaluation of the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone

  Name of contractor: ECOTEC Ltd

  Budget for research project: £340,000

  Estimated completion date: December 1998

  10. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Non-Work Peak Trips in London

  Name of contractor: Transport Research Laboratory

  Budget for research project: £75,000 from DoT

  Estimated completion date: March 1995

  11. TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

  Comparative Study: Comparison of London with its major international competitors

  Name of Contractor: Contract yet to be awarded

  Estimated completion date: October 1995

  Councillors Declarations
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to local authority resolutions to require councillors to declare memberships of clubs, unions and societies as well as directorships and shareholdings in companies. [15193]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: Regulation 3 and the schedule to the Local Authority (Members Interests) Regulations 1992, made under section 19 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, detail the prescribed direct or indirect pecuniary interests which each elected member is required to declare. DOE circular 9/92 provides further advice on the information which members are required to give, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Protection Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fisheries protection staff speak more than one of the officially recognised European Union languages.

  Mr. Jack
  Twenty-eight fisheries inspectors employed by the UK fisheries department have a working knowledge of more than one European Union language and a further 20 have basic communication skills. Similar information in relation to British sea-fishery officers of the Royal Navys fishery protection squadron is not readily available. All UK fishery protection vessels engaged in inspecting foreign vessels carry language cards for boarding purposes.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14255]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods running costs for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in the table at annexe 5 of the Ministry-intervention board departmental report, CM 2803, copies of which are available in the House.

  Organic Fluorides
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the herbicides, insecticides and fungicides approved by his Department which are organic fluorides, together with their contents of chloride. [14557]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Ministers approve the marketing or use of a pesticide only if thorough evaluation establishes that it is effective, humane and poses no unacceptable risk to human beings, non-target species or the wider environment.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993 provisional

  Jan-Sept 1994 provisional

  Total:

  Imports

  12,298

  12,262

  13,406

  13,841

  10,868

  Exports

  6,352

  6,827

  7,521

  8,053

  6,435

  Crude trade gap

  5,946

  5,435

  5,886

  5,789

  4,433

  EU:

  Imports

  8,030

  8,019

  8,862

  8,381

  6,510

  Exports

  3,632

  4,293

  4,736

  4,730

  3,885

  Crude trade gap

  4,398

  3,726

  4,127

  3,651

  2,625

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Note:

  Because of differences in valuation principles, the crude trade gap overstates the contribution of food, feed and drink to the deficit on visible trade in the balance of payment statistics by about 15 per cent.

EDUCATION

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by her Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [14246]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Details of the Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 1, annexe A and table 22, chapter 8 of the Departments annual report, Cm 2810, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Education, Bedfordshire
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on education in Bedfordshire in each of the last 10 years at constant prices. [14893]

  Wareing Bros.
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors he will take into account in assessing the current application for an increased milk quota by Wareing Bros., the Breck, Barrow hill, Chesterfield, Derbyshire. [14559]

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has no record of an application by Wareing Bros, for an increased milk quota.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to develop the monitoring of agricultural tenancies by area and ownership. [14922]

  Mr. Jack
  My Department regularly reviews its requirements for statistics, and is considering how best to monitor the new farm business tenancies which will be available from 1 September this year.

  Food and Drink Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom food and drink deficit or surplus(a) in total and (b) with the other countries of the EU for each year from 1990 to 1994. [14929]

  Mr. Jack
  Imports and exports of food and drink, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics in the years 1990 to 1994, are shown in the table.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total expenditure by Bedfordshire local education authority from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not be adjusted for any changes of function.

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices) £ million

  1974–75

  251.2

  1975–76

  259.7

  1976–77

  269.2

  1977–78

  n/a

  1978–79

  258.8

  1979–80

  254.0

  1980–81

  255.5

  1981–82

  257.9

  1982–83

  242.1

  233

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices) £ million

  1983–84

  243.0

  1984–85

  241.5

  1985–86

  240.1

  1986–87

  246.4

  1987–88

  263.1

  1988–89

  267.1

  1989–90

  261.4

  1990–91

  255.1

  1991–92

  277.9

  1992–93

  292.9

  1993–941

  242.8

  1 Provisional. n/a=Not applicable.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in Bedfordshire(a) in lower schools, (b) in middle schools and (c) in upper schools in each of the last 20 years. [14894]

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

  Pupil: teacher ratios within maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in Bedfordshire LEA position in January each year

  Year

  Primary (excluding middle)

  Middle

  Secondary1 (excluding middle)

  1975

  22.2

  17.9

  16.9

  1976

  21.5

  17.8

  16.1

  1977

  21.7

  18.0

  15.9

  1978

  21.9

  19.0

  16.0

  1979

  21.6

  19.9

  15.9

  1980

  21.7

  19.8

  15.9

  1981

  22.3

  20.1

  15.8

  1982

  21.8

  20.0

  15.6

  1983

  22.9

  20.8

  16.4

  1984

  23.3

  20.7

  16.2

  1985

  23.1

  20.3

  16.2

  1986

  22.5

  20.6

  16.2

  1987

  22.0

  20.0

  16.1

  1988

  22.0

  20.2

  15.6

  1989

  21.5

  20.3

  15.3

  1990

  21.5

  20.4

  15.5

  1991

  21.6

  19.8

  15.6

  1992

  21.6

  19.5

  15.9

  1993

  21.7

  19.6

  16.0

  1994

  22.0

  19.5

  16.1

  1 Excludes Sixth Form Colleages which ceased to be classified as schools 1 April 1993.

  Pupil Rolls
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make it her policy to apply the same educational standards to schools with fewer than five children as apply to those with higher numbers. [14986]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The educational standards required by the national curriculum and the statutory national curriculum assessment and testing arrangements apply to all five to 16-year-olds in every maintained school,234
  regardless of the numbers of pupils on roll. The national curriculum and testing are already raising standards in these schools.

  Independent schools, and independent establishments catering for fewer than five children aged five to 16 are not required to follow the national curriculum, although many independent schools choose to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to alter the existing statutory requirements.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what account is taken of the needs of schools as assessed by Her Majestys inspectorate prior to decisions on the education standard spending assessment being taken; and what account was taken on the results of Her Majestys inspectorates work in determining standard spending assessment limits for Coventry; [15045]

  (2) what assessment she has made of (a) the unpaid efforts of teachers and parents and (b) the financial contribution of parents, on the level of education standard spending assessment awards. [15041]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government take account of a wide range of factors affecting local authorities and schools when deciding the appropriate level of education standard spending. My right hon. Friend welcomes the commitment which teachers and parents bring to the education service.

  University Students
  Mr. Sherman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many university students dropped out of courses before completion in each of the last 10 years. [14837]

  Mr. Boswell
  The wastage rates of full-time and sandwich students from first degree courses in former University Funding Council funded United Kingdom universities and former English and Welsh polytechnics are shown below:

  Academic year:

  1983–84: 14 per cent.

  1984–85: 15 per cent.

  1985–86: 14 per cent.

  1986–87: 16 per cent.

  1987–88: 17 per cent.

  1988–89: 14 per cent.

  1989–90: 16 per cent.

  1990–91: 15 per cent.

  1991–92: 17 per cent.

  1992–93: 17 per cent.

  Drop-out covers all those leaving degree courses because of exam failure, ill health, personal and other reasons. It includes those switching to a lower level course but it excludes students transferring between degree courses or subjects. The rate for each academic year reflects the progression of students through the whole length of the course. The calculation for the polytechnic drop-out rate is necessarily approximate because of significant limitations in the underlying data.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Portaferry-Strangford Bridge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans he has to commission a viability report into a bridge linking the villages of Portaferry and Strangford. [14836]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14245]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of the Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 11.1 of the Departments annual report, Cm 2816, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients failed to attend out-patient appointments in Northern Ireland in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [15112]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of patients who did not attend out-patient appointments and failed to give advance warning to the hospital is as follows:

  1991–92: 246,924

  1992–93: 243,181

  1993–94: 228,092

  The number of non-attenders in 1993–94 represents 14 per cent. approximately of those who had appointments in that year. The Department of Health and Social Services is taking steps to ensure that the number of non-attenders is reduced considerably in future. Health and social services boards have been asked to review critically all aspects of out-patients waiting list management and later this year the Department will be launching a major publicity campaign aimed specifically at reducing non-attendances.

  Braidside Integrated Primary School
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on what basis the post of a religious education teacher for Braidside integrated primary school was advertised to include the ability to teach Roman Catholic religious education; and if he will make a statement. [14939]

  Mr. Ancram
  The advertisement is entirely a matter for the school authorities and reflects the schools aim of providing equitably for both religious traditions among its enrolment.

  Chief Electoral Officer
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 1993–94. [16057]
  236
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Chief Electoral Officers report has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to implement the Latham report on the construction industry. [14433]

  Mr. Moss
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking the lead in the implementation of the Latham report, which contained a number of recommendations aimed at improving contractual relationships within the construction industry and between the industry and its clients. He has established the Construction Industry Board which oversees and co-ordinates the various working groups and will carry forward the implementation process, including the provision of advice on any legislation which might be necessary.

  My officials maintain close contact with colleagues in the Department of the Environment on all aspects of implementation. Any consultations on proposals for legislation will include interested parties in Northern Ireland. Should legislation be proposed for Great Britain, I will give consideration to how such proposals could be given effect to in Northern Ireland.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Departments responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Departments 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, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15093]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [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.

  Details of staff numbers within the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments from 1989–90 onwards, divided into full-time equivalents, overtime and casuals are given in table 12.7 of the Northern Ireland departmental report, Cm 2816. Table 11.1 gives details of the running costs of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments from 1989–1990 onwards.

  Public Bodies, published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by the Northern Ireland departmental report.

  Copies of both of these publications are available in the Library.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UNESCO
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from organisations and individuals regarding rejoining the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. [15163]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received 38 letters from Members of Parliament, organisations and members of the public in the last six months about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO. In addition, there have been 11 parliamentary questions in the same period.

  We are continuing to keep this issue under review, but no decision has been taken.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the decision on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and rejoin this organisation. [15162]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The prospects for a United Kingdom return to UNESCO remain under review, but no decisions have been taken. In considering the question, we have to take into account existing financial pressures and other priority demands for resources as well as progress UNESCO has made on reform.

  Spain
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position of the United Kingdoms relationship with Spain. [15357]

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom and Spain are allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and fellow members of the European Union and the Western European Union. We have frequent and close contacts on a wide range of issues. Our relations are generally very good.

  Turkey
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey about the arrest of members of the Turkish Parliament and defence lawyers. [15340]

  Mr. David Davis
  We take every opportunity, at ministerial and official level, bilaterally and with our EU partners, to express our concerns to the Turkish Government about their overall human rights record. We did so most recently during the European Unions Association Council with Turkey on 6 March. Our representations have included specific references to the trial and sentencing of deputies from the Democracy party. Our views on this were reflected in an EU statement of 9 December 1994 expressing concern and seeking an explanation from the Turkish Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs subsequently raised the issue with the Turkish Foreign Minister on 19 December 1994 and on 2 February.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14253]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of the FCOs running costs and administrative expenditure for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in tables 1 and 2 of the FCOs 1995 departmental report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  High Commissions and Embassies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of maintaining UK high commissions in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 199596; and if he will make a statement. [14252]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of the actual and projected costs of maintaining UK high commissions are provided in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Cost

  1993–94

  81.3

  1994–95

  83.8

  1995–96

  86.7

  The figures include the costs of deputy high commissions. Further information can be found in the FCOs 1995 departmental report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what was the total cost of maintaining United Kingdom embassies in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14683]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of the actual and projected costs of maintaining United Kingdom embassies are provided in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Cost

  1993–94

  264.7

  1994–95

  272.7

  1995–96

  282.2

  Further information can be found in the FCOs departmental report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Armament Sales
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list those countries to which the United Kingdom Government refuse to sanction the sale of armaments on humanitarian grounds. [15441]

  Mr. David Davis
  We do not issue licences for the export to any country of equipment likely to be used for internal repression. In addition, we observe arms
  239
  embargos on China and Burma which were imposed because of repressive internal policies.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what troops, other than those of the Sierra Leone Government, are present in Sierra Leone; and what role they are playing. [14848]

  Mr. Baldry
  We understand that units of the armed forces of Guinea, Nigeria and Ghana are present in Sierra Leone by agreement between the Governments concerned. We also understand that the Government of Sierra Leone have themselves contracted some former Ghurkas to assist in training the Sierra Leone armed forces.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role has been played by the Commonwealth Secretariat in attempting to ameliorate the situation in Sierra Leone: and what reports he has received from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth about the need for international preventative diplomacy or other action in Sierra Leone; and how he is going to respond. [14851.]

  Mr. Baldry
  Staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat have visited the region and sought to establish contact with the various parties to the dispute. We have given our strong support to international efforts to bring about a peaceful solution.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimates of the number of people in Sierra Leone who have been killed since the war started in 1991. [14853.]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer to my written reply of 16 February to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), column 731.

TREASURY

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a detailed breakdown of the expenditure described as non-identified in table 7.7 of Command Paper 2821; and if he will make a statement. [14623]

  Mr. Aitken
  Non-identifiable general Government expenditure is that which cannot be recognised as having been incurred for the benefit of the population of a specific country. It also includes all other general Government expenditure which individual Departments are unable to identify by country from their records. A breakdown is given in the table.

  Breakdown of 1993–94 non-identifiable expenditure

  £ billion

  Defence

  22.9

  Overseas Services

  3.5

  Current transfers abroad (excluding above)

  1.8

  Nationalised Industries EFLs

  4.4

  Law, order and protective service

  1.0

  Other unidentifiable expenditure

  11.2

  of which:

  Agriculture market regulation and production support

  1.1

  Scientific and technological assistance

  0.4

  240

  Breakdown of 1993–94 non-identifiable expenditure

  £ billion

  Functioning of the labour market

  0.2

  Arts

  0.2

  Higher and further education

  0.3

  Non-contributory pension benefits

  0.7

  Unemployment, incapacity and other benefits

  0.7

  Contributory family benefits

  0.4

  Parliamentary and Privy Council

  0.3

  Economic and financial administration

  3.3

  Central Management of Civil Service

  1.3

  44.8

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for money gross domestic product in the financial year 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14682]

  Mr. Aitken
  Last Novembers Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast growth in money GDP of 6 ¼ per cent. in 1995–96.

  Customs and Excise Computer Centre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff employed in the private contractors operation at the Customs and Excise computer centre at Southend have criminal records. [15319]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None of the staff working for private contractors is known to have a criminal record.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what security arrangements appertain to the private contractors operation of the Customs and Excise computer centre at Southend; what inquiries are made to ascertain whether any staff employed have criminal records; and if he will make a statement. [15318]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The vetting procedures for private contract staff working at the Customs and Excise computer centre are identical to those for Customs and Excise staff working there. These procedures are in accordance with the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 764–66, and further amplified by the press notice which accompanied it.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is being given to offering relief on VAT on fuel for advice centres. [14907]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which products other than fuel VAT is charged both on the product and the standing charges. [14981]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any product which is the subject of a two-part tariff is liable to VAT at the rate applying to the product. A payment as such does not have a VAT liability. A standing charge is the consideration for a past or future supply of the product.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of removing VAT on fuel in respect of standing charges. [14983]
  241
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. Standing charges are part payment for the one service—the supply of domestic gas and electricity—and as such are liable to VAT at the reduced rate of 8 per cent.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received against the imposition of VAT on both supply and standing charges. [14982]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have received a number of such representations from both Members and direct from the public.

  Lloyds Underwriters
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Inland Revenues estimate of tax repaid to Lloyds underwriters during the fiscal year 1994–95. [14431]

  Sir George Young
  A provisional estimate, based on data to the first week in March, is that £347 million of income tax and capital gains tax will be repaid to Lloyds underwriters by the underwriters unit of Inland Revenue in the financial year 1994–95. This cover refunds of tax paid over a range of earlier years, and includes any repayment supplement attracted by the tax refunded.

  Fraud
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the full annual report summarising frauds committed against Government Departments. [15056]

  Sir George Young
  The report is a restricted document and it would not be appropriate to place it in the Library as this could prejudice current fraud investigations. However, the report is made available to the National Audit Office.

  Profit-related Pay Schemes
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many participants in profit-related pay schemes were taxed at marginal rates of(a) 20 per cent., (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 40 per cent. in each year since 1988–89;

  (2) what information he has on the distribution of salaries among participants in profit-related pay schemes in each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what information he has on the distribution of payments among the participants in profit-related pay schemes in each year since 1988–89; how many of the participants failed to obtain a payment under the scheme; how many of the participants received a maximum payment under the scheme; and how many of the participants obtained a payment yielding the maximum tax relief under the scheme.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of the effect of profit-related pay schemes on(a) the companies concerned and (b) the economy.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: Studies on profit-sharing schemes generally suggest that they are associated with increased employee involvement and increases in productivity.

  EU Finances
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, columns 459–62, regarding sums paid and received by each member state of the EU, if he will publish a table to indicate the net sums received, or paid, by each state in each year since 1984. [14576]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: This information can readily he derived from the tables in my earlier reply. However, as the Court of Auditors report does not attribute all budget expenditure to individual member states, the difference between payments made to member states and actual own resources paid by member states should not be regarded as indicating definitive net contributions for each member state.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking under article 109(i) of the Maastricht treaty to bring forward proposals to make the Bank of England independent; and if he will make a statement. [14525]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: None.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 February to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar),Official Report, column 9, if he will give details of the 29 projects relating to the private finance initiative. [15414]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The 29 projects were as follows:

  PROJECT TITLE, BY DEPARTMENT

  Environment

  1. Docklands light railway Lewisham extension

  2. Royal docks energy company initiative

  3. Royal docks exhibition centre and car park, London

  Health

  4. Bishop Auckland hospital

  5. Carlisle district general hospital/Cumberland infirmary

  6. Durham district general hospital

  7. Royal Brompton hospital

  8. St. Jamess University NHS trust: medi-park development

  9. Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust extension to district general hospital

  10. Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust development

  Home Office

  11. Bridgend prison

  12. Immigration and nationality department information technology

  13. Merseyside prison

  14. Police national telecommunications network

  Scottish Office

  15. Highland regional council: Fort William sewage plant

  16. Highland regional council: Inverness main drainage

  17. Royal infirmary of Edinburgh

  18. Strathclyde regional council: Dalmuir sewage treatment works

  19. Western general hospital molecular medicines centre

  243
  Social Security

  20. Benefits Agency / Post Office Counters Ltd. integrated benefit automation system

  21. National insurance recording system

  22. Newcastle site redevelopment—of government property

  Transport

  23. Channel tunnel rail link

  24. Croydon tramlink

  25. Design build finance operate—DBFO—contracts for road operation and improvement

  26. Midland Metro line one

  27. Northern line: leasing of trains

  28. Scottish enroute air traffic control centre

  Welsh Office

  29. University hospital of Wales Cardiff: multi-storey car park

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14241]

  Mr. Horman
  Details of running costs and administrative spending by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Ministers Office, and the Office of Public Service and Science for the years 1989–90 through to 1997–98 are contained in tables 7.5 and 7.6 of my Departments annual report, Cm 2820, copies of which are available at the Members Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Staffordshire and Somerset training and enterprise councils and Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire chamber of commerce training and enterprise are making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [15855]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Staffordshire and Somerset training and enterprise councils and Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire chamber of commerce training and enterprise have now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three-year licences. Their licences will be effective from April 1995.

  Temporary Contracts
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in the United Kingdom are currently employed on temporary contracts of(a) under three months, (b) under six months, (c) under one year and (d) over one year in duration. [15064]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested can be obtained from the labour force survey for spring 1994 and is shown in the following table:
  244

  Employees with a fixed term contract1 by length of contract United Kingdom: Spring 1994

  Number

  Less than 1 year

  492,000

  of which:

  less than 3 months

  135,000

  less than 6 months

  270,000

  More than 1 year

  308,000

  Total

  800,000

  1 Excludes those temporary employees for whom the length of employment had not yet been fixed.

  Jobcentres (Signing Times)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances(a) the Employment Service can vary a claimants signing on time to enable that person to attend a training and education course, and (b) a claimant who has been participating in a part-time education or training course can continue in that course and have it included in a training for work action plan; and if he will make a statement. [15249]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The allocation of signing days and times is the responsibility of Employment Service office managers who are best placed to take account of local circumstances which affect clients access to jobcentres. Local office managers are encouraged to vary signing times and/or days to facilitate clients undertaking a course of study or training, provided they are satisfied attendance does not prevent an individual from fulfilling the conditions for receipt of benefit.

  With regard to the training for work programme, clients are assessed in order to establish the most appropriate mix of training and work experience to meet their needs and to formulate a TFW action plan. This may include continuation of a course they are already following.

  Training (Appeals)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what formal and informal rights of appeal exist for a participant in a Government training scheme if he or she has a grievance or feels that he or she has not received the quality of service promised; and if he will make a statement. [15173]

  Mr. Paice
  Formal arrangements for individuals dissatisfied with their programme of training are written into the contract the Department has with training and enterprise councils which are responsible for the delivery of Government-funded training programmes. These arrangements require TECs to offer alternative training to those persons who have reasonable grounds for dissatisfaction with their training programme.

  Training for Work
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are involved in delivering training for work through adult training credits; what plans he has to encourage further development of such credits; and if he will make a statement. [15177]
  245
  Mr. Paice
  The following training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are understood to be using a form of adult training credit within their training for work provision:

  South and East Cheshire TEC;

  Hertfordshire TEC;

  Bedfordshire TEC;

  Bradford TEC;

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC;

  North East Wales TEC;

  Grampian Enterprise;

  Orkney Enterprise.

  Responsibility for development projects in Scotland and Wales rests with the appropriate Secretary of State. There are currently no plans for the Employment Department to support further development in this area as TECs have the freedom to deliver TFW through a credit mechanism if they wish.

  Training (EU Nationals)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if European Community nationals are allowed to count any period of unemployment in which they were in receipt of benefit in another EC country towards the qualifying period of unemployment for eligibility for(a) training for work, (b) community action and (c) other Employment Service programmes; and if he will make a statement. [15180]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At present, people who qualify for training for work on the grounds of unemployment need to have been unemployed for six months in the United Kingdom to be eligible, regardless of nationality. Periods of unemployment in other European Union—European economic area countries count towards eligibility for community action and all other Employment Service programmes. We are currently in the process of reviewing all eligibility criteria for Employment Department programmes to ensure they are consistent, simple and clear.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances citizens from other European Community countries can participate in youth training, training for work or community action, or in other employment schemes financed by the Employment Department; once having entered a programme, if they are entitled to complete it; and if he will make a statement. [15181]

  Mr. Paice
  Citizens of other European Community countries can participate in training and other schemes financed by the Employment Department, provided they otherwise satisfy the eligibility conditions for the individual scheme concerned. Eligible people entering a particular scheme are entitled to complete it provided they continue to satisfy the conditions of the scheme concerned.

  Part-time Education and Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances participation in a part-time education or training course count as one of the job-seeking steps necessary to satisfy the actively seeking work condition; and if participation in a part-time education or training course is regarded as a positive outcome from a restart interview. [15247]
  246
  Miss Widdecombe
  The steps an individual is required to take in any week are those which are reasonable in his or her case and which offer him or her the best prospects of receiving offers of employment. Participation in a part-time education or training course cannot count as a step towards satisfying the actively seeking employment condition, because it does not lead directly to offers of employment. However, it is recognised that people undertaking part-time courses will not have as much time to seek work as other clients and this is taken into account in considering the steps taken by a client in any week.

  Part-time education can enhance some clients prospects of finding work in the longer term and so Employment Service advisers will give advice and guidance on part-time education opportunities available and the implications as far as benefits are concerned. However, clients who start part-time education following a restart interview are not counted towards our positive outcome targets unless they also leave the unemployment register.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances an unemployed person participating in a part-time education or training course will not be required to attend a compulsory restart or workwise course or jobplan workshop; and what arrangements are made to ensure that those who are required to attend the course or workshop do not have their part-time study disrupted. [15248]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It has been a long-standing principle of the social security system that unemployment benefits are not paid unconditionally but involve reciprocal obligations on the part of the claimant. These include fulfilling the requirements of both being available for and actively seeking work for the days on which benefit is claimed. This requirement applies to all unemployed people, including people who may be studying on a part-time basis.

  Equally, the requirement to attend jobplan, 1–2–l/workwise—worklink in Scotland—or restart courses includes those who are undertaking part-time study. However, wherever possible arrangements will be made for attendance to fall at a time outside normal study hours or exam times.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances people can participate on a part-time basis in training for work and community action; to what participation allowance they would be entitled; and if he will make a statement. [15172]

  Mr. Paice
  Under the arrangements that will apply to training for work in 1995–96, non-employed trainees can participate part time as long as their planned training averages at least 15 hours in a seven day period. There are no minimum hours for employed status trainees. Non-employed trainees receive an allowance based on their benefit entitlement when they joined the programme, plus a supplement of £10 per week.

  Community action is a part-time programme. Participation lasts for a minimum of 21 hours a week. People participating in this programme receive an allowance equivalent to their normal benefit rate plus £10 per week.

  Jobseekers Allowance
  Ms Short
  to ask the Secretary of State for Employment what adjudication decisions will be taken by front-line Employment Service officers when the jobseekers allowance is introduced; what training they will receive to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [15265]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The introduction of the new jobseekers allowance to replace unemployment benefit and income support, and its joint delivery by the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency will mean a number of changes to adjudication work in both agencies. We are currently considering the impact of those changes, and looking at ways of improving the speed and effectiveness of adjudication. If locating some labour market adjudication decisions closer to the front line in jobcentres would speed up the process of decision making and give claimants better service, it is right that such ideas should be considered and piloted if appropriate.

  A full programme of training for ES officers is being developed to equip them to deliver JSA effectively. This will include training on the entitlement conditions for JSA and the adjudication process.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the current 21-hour rule enabling unemployed people to participate in independent European social fund courses will be subject to reduction to 16 guided learning hours when the jobseekers allowance is introduced; and if he will make a statement. [15258]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People undertaking part-time courses part-funded by the European social fund while claiming jobseekers allowance will be subject to the rules of JSA. These will include an upper limit of 16 guided learning hours per week for people undertaking Further Education Funding Council-funded courses and a requirement to be available for and actively seeking employment.

  Where ESF part-funds Government programmes, such as training for work, trainees will be subject to the rules of those programmes.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the current 21-hour rule enabling unemployed people to study while receiving benefit will be reduced to 16 guided learning hours when the jobseekers allowance is introduced in Northern Ireland; what difference there will be in the treatment of unemployed people who take up places in either further or higher education courses; and if he will make a statement. [15159]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People claiming jobseekers allowance will be able to undertake part-time courses provided that they remain available for, and actively seeking, employment. We have decided to update the rules to reflect changes in the way certain courses are organised. These changes will ensure that the rules can be applied fairly and consistently and allow the same number of unemployed people to study part time while receiving benefits. In the case of courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council in England, unemployed people will be able to study for up to 16 guided learning hours per week. We intend to introduce similar arrangements in Northern Ireland. The rules will be based on definitions used in further education in Northern 248
  Ireland, where the concept of guided learning hours is not used. There will be no change in higher education where a part-time definition still exists.

  Child Care Costs
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help he provides for parents and other people with caring responsibilities who want to take up places in training for work and other Employment Department programmes; and if he will make a statement. [15175]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are able to support parents entering training with the cost of child care. In particular, TECs are required to provide child care support for those in the youth training guarantee group. Support with child care most often takes the form of an allowance paid to a childminder, but it is for TECs to determine how the support is given. Career development loans, which help individuals pay for their own vocational training, can be used to pay for part-time and distance learning courses and child care costs.

  Gateways to Learning Initiative
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are involved in the gateways to learning initiative; what achievements have been made under the programme; how many TECs and LECs will receive gateways funding in 1995–96; what are his future plans for the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [15179]

  Mr. Paice
  In 1994–95, 43 training and enterprise councils have had contracts from the Employment Department under the gateways to learning initiative. The majority of these TECs will continue to receive funding in 1995–96. By the time the initiative has ended, a total of 58 TECs will have participated. No loca enterprise companies have been involved. The initiative has contributed to the development of quality assured adult careers guidance and information networks in England. Over 70,000 people will have been helped to produce personal action plans relating to their education, training and career opportunities. There are no plans to continue the initiative once current contracts have ended.

  Open Learning Credits
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are involved in the open learning credits initiative; what achievements have been made under the programme; how participation in open learning credits affects an unemployed persons eligibility for other Employment Department programmes; how many TECs and LECs will receive open learning credit funding in 1995–96; what are his future plans for the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [15178]

  Mr. Paice
  The open learning credits pilots were run in 1993–94 to trial the use of open learning for unemployed people. There were 14 pilots involving 17 training and enterprise councils and two local enterprise companies. The pilots were fully evaluated and a copy of the evaluation report has been place in the Library. The findings showed that open learning has a number of potential benefits to offer. Information from the pilots will
  249
  be disseminated to TECs and LECs to help them decide on what use they want to make of open learning as a training method within their training provision. There are no plans to fund open learning credits as a separate initiative, so the question of participants eligibility for other Government programmes will not arise.

  Skill Choice
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are involved in the skill choice initiative; what achievements have been made under the programme; how many TECs and LECs will receive skill choice funding in 1995–96; what are his future plans for the initiative and if he will make a statement. [15176]

  Mr. Paice
  Thirteen English training and enterprise councils and four local enterprise companies are involved in the two-year skill choice initiative.

  Skill choice will complete its two-year programme on 31 March 1995, but existing TECs and LECs will receive funding in 1995–96 to cover residual commitments from 1994–95.

  Since 1 April 1993, 170,000 individuals have been helped to obtain careers information, vocational guidance and assessment services which can lead to recognised vocational qualifications.

  There are no plans to continue the initiative once current contracts have ended.

  Gardening Training
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to encourage training in gardening so that those who are unemployed can learn the skills to manage allotments and grow their own vegetables. [15263]

  Mr. Paice
  Training for work offers training to help unemployed people get back to work. If training in gardening skills is likely to help individuals find jobs, training and enterprise councils may support it. In 1995–96, we aim to help some 104,000 people into jobs through TFW.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14254]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of the Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in annexe A, table iv of the Departments annual report, Cm 2805, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many senior inspectors and medical advisers retired from the Health and Safety Executive on 17 March; and for how many years in total they had worked for the executive. [15210]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Fifty-eight senior inspectors and nine medical advisers retired from the Health and Safety 250
  Executive on 17 March 1995 under the voluntary early retirement scheme. In total, they had 1,180 years service with HSE.

  VERS is part of a long-term restructuring exercise designed to ensure that HSE has the talent and experience it needs for challenges now and in the future. No inspectors have been made redundant. A campaign to recruit 60 front-line inspectors is under way.

  There will be no diminution of enforcement activity.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimate of the likely number of deaths due to asbestos which will occur in 10, 20 and 30 years time; and what changes those estimates represent relative to those made 10 years ago. [14367]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [0holding answer 20 March 1995]: The estimated number of males dying from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in 10 years time could range between 1,300 and 2,100; in 20 years time between 1,300 and 3,000 and in 30 years time between 1,000 and 3,200. Projected figures for females are not available.

  Currently, there are estimated to be one or two deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer for each death from mesothelioma. The falling prevalence of smoking is likely to reduce this ratio in the future.

  No comparative estimates were produced 10 years ago. This is the first time that projections have been estimated using the Health and Safety Executives mesothelioma register.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce the caseload of the Belfast Child Support Agency centre as a consequence of that centres performance against targets.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 22 March 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the caseload of the Child Support Agency Centres at Belfast.

  The caseload, performance and targets of all six Child Support Agency Centre (CSACs) are regularly reviewed by senior operations managers. There are currently no plans to adjust the caseload holdings of Belfast or any other CSAC.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the Child Support Agencys staff was recruited from(a) the civil service and (b) outside the civil service.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 22 March 1995:

  251
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the recruitment of staff by the Child Support Agency.
  The precise information that you request is not collated by the Agency for statistical purposes. Full information on the background of staff who formed the Agency at its launch in April 1993 is not readily available, but I expect to be able to provide it within two weeks, and shall write to your further.
  Information on recruitment is, however, available for the 12 month period ending 30 September 1994. During that period the Agency recruited a total of 1,847 people. Of these, 323 (17 per cent.) came from the within the Civil Service and 1,524 (83 per cent.) were recruited from outside the Civil Service.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from nursing and residential home associations regarding proposed social security benefits rates. [14840]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have received a few representations recently from the representative bodies, including the Yorkshire branch of the Registered Nursing Homes Association and the Hereford and Worcester branch of the Residential Care Homes Association, about the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to protect those people on Government training schemes in respect of cuts in income support for mortgage interest payments; [14776]

  (2) if he will take into account in his final plans for reduction in income support for mortgage interest the position of women who are unemployed due to pregnancy; [14782]

  (3) what proposals he has to protect those people on Government training schemes in respect of cuts in income support for mortgage interest payments. [14882]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are considering the position of all groups during the consultation period and officials are discussing with the Association of British Insurers how best to ensure that the interaction between state and private provision works well.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has given to insurance firms in respect of mortgage protection in respect of unemployment due to pregnancy. [14778]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None, but officials are talking to the Association of British Insurers to ensure that the interaction between state and private provisions work well.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assurances he has received from the Association of British Insurers in respect of the availability of mortgage protection policies following cuts in income support. [14777]
  252
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Association of British Insurers has said that very few people who are accepted for a mortgage will not also satisfy the conditions for insurance and that even where insurance may not currently be available it expects cover to develop quite quickly.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to examine the Social Security Advisory Committee report of 1993 in regard to the extent of coverage by insurance companies of the whole range of workers for mortgage interest. [14779]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have read the 1993 report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the regulations introducing an upper limit on the amount of help with income support mortgage interest and responded to it. I also read the committees 1994 report on state benefit and private provision, which accepted that there was scope for the expansion of private mortgage protection insurance, at the time of publication. The Governments proposals for change in relation to income support mortgage interest payments announced in the last Budget have also been referred to the committee, which is consulting widely on them. I will study in detail the report that it produces on these proposals.

  Housing Benefit (Prisoners)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received regarding his plans for reductions in housing benefit for short-sentence prisoners; [14780]

  (2) what safeguards he plans to impose to prevent released short-term prisoners from becoming homeless. [14781]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department has consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations about proposals for restricting the payment of housing benefit to convicted prisoners to 13 weeks. We have also received a number of representations from other organisations, including the Probation Services, the Scottish Council for Single Mothers, Shelter, citizens advice bureaux, Bury Accommodation Forum and the North West Landlords Association and from some members of the public. The amendment regulations were laid before Parliament on 10 March and come into effect from 1 April 1995.

  Housing benefit will be available to prisoners serving up to 13 weeks, after allowance for any remission, and to all ex-prisoners following their release from prison who have a liability to pay rent. Where a partner remains in the home, housing benefit will continue to be available during the period of absence without restriction.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of money spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14622]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of this Departments administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 1 of the Departments annual report, Cm 2813, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many people are currently receiving invalidity benefit in each of the benefit districts in Wales; and what percentage these figures represent, by district, of the total population of working age. [14892]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  People in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Benefits Agency districts covering Wales on the last working day of February 1995, and as a percentage of working population

  District

  Number of invalidity benefit recipients1

  Percentage of the working population2

  North Gwent and Brecon

  17,291

  —

  North Wales Coast

  13,766

  —

  South Glamorgan

  16,336

  7

  Gwynedd

  10,900

  7

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  14,008

  —

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  10,818

  —

  Ogwar Afan Nedd

  22,939

  —

  Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  24,171

  18

  Swansea

  17,876

  —

  Taff Rhondda

  18,235

  —

  West Wales

  20,127

  —

  Notes:

  1 Figures obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the Benefits Agency offices. The figure will include some people who have claimed but are not actually receiving invalidity benefit because they are in receipt of a higher overlapping benefit.

  2 The working population has been taken to be 16 to 64 for men and 16 to 59 for women. Estimated mid-year in 1993 population figures supplied by the population estimates unit, Office of Population Censuses and Survey. Figures have been given only where the Benefits Agency district has the same boundaries as the Welsh county districts.

WALES

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to ensure clean bathing beaches and pollution-free rivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1994, 76 per cent. of the Welsh bathing waters identified under the European bathing waters directive met its mandatory bacteriological standards. The most recent survey for inland waters is for 1991–93 and shows that 86.2 per cent. of river and canal lengths in the National Rivers Authoritys Welsh region are of good quality, with 11 per cent. as fair quality, 2.5 per cent. poor quality and 0.3 per cent. bad quality.

  Dwr Cymru Welsh Waters investment programme for 1995–2000 involving expenditure of nearly £1 billion includes provision for further significant improvements to inland and coastal discharges. The National Rivers authority is also acting to bring about improvements to many industrial and agricultural pollution sources.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment has been made of the current level of industrial pollution in Welsh rivers and waterways;
  254
  (2) if he will list the 10 most polluted rivers in Wales in rank order, indicating the main pollutants contaminating the water and riverbank.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Rivers Authority monitors the quality of watercourses in Wales and sources of pollution. It has published The Quality of Rivers, Canals and Estuaries in England and Wales—Report of the 1990 Survey and The Quality of Rivers and Canals in England and Wales (1990–92) copies of which are in the Library of the House. Last December, the authority published interim results for 1991–93 which showed that, in its Welsh Region, 86. 2 per cent. of river and canal lengths were classed as good quality, 11 per cent. were fair quality, 2.5 per cent were poor quality and 0.3 per cent. were bad quality.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the reason for the planned reduction in expenditure between the 1994–95 allocation of £6.9 million on environmentally sensitive areas and the 1995–96 plans to spend £5.5 million on environmentally sensitive areas, as set out at figure 2.01 on page 8 of Cm 2815.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Planned domestic expenditure on environmentally sensitive areas is £5.5 million which together with planned EC expenditure of £1.4 million, gives a total of £6.9 million, the same as planned for 1994–95. the EC expenditure on this scheme is included under Other in the section headed Commodity Support Measures in figure 2.01—footnote 3 to the table refers.

  Toxic Waste Imports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what factors underlay the omission from the section on waste in his Environmental Agenda for Wales of any discussion or guidance on his policy on the import of toxic waste into Wales for treatment or incineration.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Environmental Agenda for Wales sets out my right hon. Friends main objectives and priorities for the Welsh environment. It promotes practical greenery, such as energy efficiency and recycling at home and in the workplace, using reclaimed land for development, and other measures aimed at protecting the environment without stifling essential economic development. The import of waste is an international issue, which is fully covered in other Government statements, for example, a draft UK plan on imports and exports of waste was issued for consultation on 3 February.

  Housing Renovation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made in regard to the benefit that would accrue to poorer communities in Wales from an increase in the upper grant limit available to households for house renovation. [14581]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh house condition survey 1993 estimated that 96 per cent. of unfit homes could be made fit at a cost of £15,000 or less. The upper grant limit is £24,000 and the present arrangements ensure that grants are targeted to poorer households, Local authorities and also make discretionary awards.
  255
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from local authorities in Wales regarding the implications for house renovation of the present cap on the total resources available for improving the housing stock. [14580]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Generally there has been a welcome for the £1 billion which the Government have allocated for renovation since the start of the present grant system, while some councils have indicated that they have substantial inquiries about grants.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the posts to which he has made appointments in Wales in the last three years that have been(a) advertised and (b) not advertised. [14404]

  Mr. Redwood
  All the appointments I make are listed in Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, which is updated quarterly and is available in the Library of the House. Of these, in the last three years, the following posts have been advertised in the national press.

  Post

  Chair:

  Welsh Development Agency

  Independent Complaints Administrator:

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Chairman and members:

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Glan Y Mor NHS Trust

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Gwent Health Authority

  Mid and West Wales Health Authority

  North Wales Health Authority

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Also, in July 1993, the Welsh Office ran a general newspaper advertising campaign inviting people to join the Departments register of candidates for public appointment, from which the majority of appointees are selected.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To aks the Secretary of State for Wales how many women are members of the boards of Welsh quangos; and what percentage this is of all members. [14731]

  Mr. Redwood
  The most recent information about appointments that I make is set out in Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 March 1995, which is available in the Library of the House; 230 or 26.9 per cent. of these appointments were held by women. Of 189 appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies, 41 or 21.7 per cent. were held by women.

  Local Authority House Building
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been built in Wales in each year since 1979. [14873]
  256
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of local authority dwellings completed from 1979 up to 1993 has been published in table 2.3 of Welsh Housing Statistics No. 14 1994, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  In 1994, the number of new dwellings completed by local authorities in Wales was 227.

  Local Authority Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 125, if he will name the local authorities which own the zoos listed. [15170]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Swansea city council owns Plantasia zoo.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his forecast for Welsh GDP in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [14243]

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no official forecasts of Welsh GDP. The Budget forecasts a 3.25 per cent. growth in the United Kingdom GDP, and private sector forecasts expect Wales to outperform the UK.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the Welsh GDP in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [14244]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Central Statistical Office estimates that Welsh GDP at factor cost and current prices was £22,761 million in 1993. Estimates for 1994 are not yet available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the Welsh percentage of the United Kingdoms forecast money GDP in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [14248]

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no official forecasts of Welsh GDP.

  Fish-eating Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what advice he has received from the Countryside Commission for Wales and the National Rivers Authority about the impact of fish stocks in Wales of piscivorous birds; [14553]

  (2) how many licences to take piscivorous birds he has issued in each of the last two years; how many birds, by species, were taken under each of those licences; what criteria he used in determining whether to grant such licences; what conditions he attached to such licences; and what arrangements he made to monitor them. [14554]

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to sign letters prepared by his Department in Welsh to constituents and other organisations in Wales which write to him in Welsh. [14889]
  257
  Mr. Redwood
  All correspondents who write to me in Welsh receive a reply in Welsh as well as English. My policy is only to sign letters in a language that I understand.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients failed to attend out-patient appointments in Wales in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [15113]

  Mr. Redwood
  Some hospitals are unable to provide information on patients failing to attend out-patient appointments. The available data are in the following table.

  Health Authority area unit trust

  Patients failing to attend out-patient appointments

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  6,249

  7,175

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  11,158

  16,147

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  19,565

  18,619

  East Dyfed

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  10,522

  11,169

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  6,434

  8,953

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  11,192

  13,961

  Mental Health Unit

  1,784

  1,333

  Gwent

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  34,951

  50,469

  North Gwent Unit

  9,203

  10,333

  Gwent Community NHS Trust

  5,435

  7,304

  Gwynedd

  Acute Unit

  22,481

  28,705

  Community Unit

  4,139

  6,097

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  15,983

  20,180

  Hensol Unit

  —

  1

  Merthyr Cynon Unit

  31,547

  41,612

  Rhondda Unit

  9,277

  10,479

  Rhymney Valley Unit

  4,554

  9,799

  Taff Ely Unit

  13,151

  14,475

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  8,266

  10,744

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  4,739

  5,884

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary Unit

  n/a

  4,695

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  9,310

  University Hospital of Wales Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  Whitchurch Hospital Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  Dental Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  West Glamorgan

  District Unit

  2,121

  8,382

  East Unit

  17,534

  17,330

  North Unit

  4,907

  1,341

  Swansea NHS Trust

  22,978

  23,563

  Note:

  NHS trusts are listed under the name they had in 1993–94 although some did not have trust status in 1992–93.

  Usk Barrage Inquiry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received the Inspectors report on the Usk barrage inquiry; and when he expects to announce his decision. [15274]

  Mr. Redwood
  The inspector's report was received by my Department on 1 March 1995 and is being considered 258
  by officials. The decision will be announced as soon as practicable.

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a full list of the members of the board of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales; what is the term of service of each membership; and what is the standard notification given to each board member whose term is coming to a close concerning his re-appointment or termination as a member. [15484]

  Mr. Redwood
  The board of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales consists of a chairman and seven non-executive members appointed by the Secretary of State, and two executive members, namely the chief officer and the financial officer of the authority.

  Names and terms of membership are as follows:

  Appointed until

  Chairman

  Mr. J. I. Davies

  31 March 1996

  Non-executive members

  Mr. R. Cutherbertson

  31 March 1995

  Mr. H. D. Griffiths

  31 March 1995

  Dr. B. N. C. Littlepage

  31 March 1995

  Mr. J. Thomas

  31 March 1995

  Mrs. C. E. Lewis

  31 March 1997

  Mr. R. C. May-Hill

  31 March 1997

  Miss A. Thomas

  31 March 1997

  Executive members

  Chief officer—Vacancy

  Ex officio

  Financial officer—Mr. M. D. Golding

  Ex officio

  It is my intention that, wherever possible, members should know in good time whether they will be offered re-appointment.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name each of the members of the board of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales since its inception; and how many terms each board member, past and present has served. [15490]

  Mr. Redwood
  The names of each member who has served on the board of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, their position and the number of terms served are as follows:

  Position

  Terms Served

  Mrs. M. Bond

  Non-executive member

  1

  Professor J. C. Catford

  Executive member

  1

  Miss C. Charlesworth

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mr. A. Crabbe

  Non-executive member

  2

  Mr. R. Cuthbertson

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mr. G. Davies

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mr. J. I. Davies

  Chairman

  1

  Dr. J. Evans

  Non-executive member

  1

  Dr. D. Frances

  Non-executive member

  2

  Mr. M. Golding

  Executive member

  1

  Mr. H. Griffiths

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mr. J. D. Griffiths

  Non-executive member

  1

  Professor R. Hodgson

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mrs. C. James

  Non-executive member

  1

  Councillor T. Jones

  Non-executive member

  1

  Dr. M. Keen

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mrs. C. E. Lewis

  Non-executive member

  2

  Mr. T. Lewis

  Non-executive member

  1

  259

  Position

  Terms Served

  Dr. B. Littlepage

  Non-executive member

  3

  Mr. R. C. May-Hill

  Non-executive member

  2

  Miss E. Muir

  Non-executive member

  1

  Mr. S. Roberts

  Non-executive member

  1

  Miss E. Rossiter

  Non-executive member

  1

  Miss S. Sandham

  Non-executive member

  1

  Dr. S. A. Smail

  Chairman

  2

  Miss V. Sugar

  Non-executive member

  1

  Miss A. Thomas

  Non-executive member

  2

  Mr. J. Thomas

  Non-executive member

  2

  Mrs. I. Train

  Non-executive member

  2

  Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of his guidance to non-departmental public bodies on making reductions in their expenditure on consultants fees. [15489]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have issued no general guidance to non-departmental public bodies.

  My strategic guidance letters to the Welsh Development Agency and to the Development Board for Rural Wales set targets for reductions in spending on consultants and my letter to the Cardiff Bay development corporation asked it to reduce its reliance on consultants. Copies of those letters are in the Library of the House.

  All public bodies must obtain value for money from consultants and ensure that they are the most cost-effective means of achieving results.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the consultancy fees paid to Mr. Meirion Thomas of the Cardiff business school and Mr. Stewart Rubin of KLR Consulting and if he will make a statement. [15488]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Environmental Agenda for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he undertook with national government officers and local authorities before his launch of his Environmental Agenda for Wales. [15452]

  Mr. Redwood
  I circulated the text of my Environmental Agenda for Wales to ministerial colleagues prior to its publication; and subsequently copies were also sent to the Welsh local authority associations and to all the county and district councils in Wales.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what advice he has sought about the effects which financial and staff reductions will have on the Countryside Council for Wales ability to implement recovery programmes or action plans for endangered specifies in Wales; and what was the result of such advice; [15453]

  (2) if he will list the representations he has received from the board of the Countryside Council for Wales expressing concern at the level of funding available for
  260
  the monitoring of endangered species and statutory designated sites in Wales in 1995–96. [15454]

  Mr. Redwood
  In meetings held on 10 January 1995 with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales and on 24 January 1995 with the full council, discussions took place on a variety of issues, such as how the Countryside Council for Wales can continue effectively to carry out its range of duties, including those in respect of the EC habitats and special directive, other designated sites and endangered species in Wales, in the light of its settlement for 1995–96. These discussions and all other advice received have formed the basis of the action plan that I intend to publish shortly, setting out the issues on which I want the council to concentrate in the next two years.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list those posts within the Countryside Council for Wales which will become vacant following the budgetary cuts for 1995–96; and which will be re-filled and which made redundant. [15455]

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on staffing are the responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. I will arrange for copies of that letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14240]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Details of my Departments running costs spending for the years 1989–90 to 1996–97 are contained in table 9.4 of my Departments annual report 1995, Cm 2811, copies of which are available in the Members Library.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued in 1994 by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publications and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: The information that the hon. Member requires is listed in the table. The total equivalent cost in 1993 is given where appropriate.

  Title

  Cost 1993 £

  Cost 1994 £

  Department of National Heritage

  DNH Annual Report

  not available

  15,887.34

  Preserving the Past, Shaping the Future

  —

  8,037.90

  261

  Title

  Cost 1993 £

  Cost 1994 £

  Preserving the Past, Shaping the Future (reprint)

  —

  2,310.00

  Proposed new Library and Information Commission—A Consultation Paper

  —

  80.48

  Report by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on Library and Information Matters during 1993

  —

  1,514.54

  Public Lending Right Annual Report 1993–94

  1,165.05

  1,200.77

  Export Licensing Unit Code of Practice

  —

  1,360.38

  The Future of the BBC, Serving the Nation Competing world-wide (White Paper)

  —

  5,662.86

  BBC White Paper summary sheet

  —

  223.25

  The National Lottery leaflet

  —

  2,087.32

  The Ecclesiastical Exemption—What it is and How it Works

  —

  1,028.00

  The Ecclesiastical Exemption—What it is and How it Works (reprint)

  —

  926.00

  Library Information Series No. 21: School Library Services and Financial Delegation to Schools

  —

  807.33

  'Newsbrief newsletters

  —

  561.08

  Annual Report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of

  Works of Art

  6,122.18

  6,352.15

  A Guide to the Department and its Sponsored Bodies (two issues in 1993 and one in 1994)

  3,357.18

  2,149.33

  What Listing Means

  —

  2,779.08

  What Listing Means (reprint)

  —

  2,332.33

  Review of Grading in Museums

  —

  68.15

  Guidelines for Alterations to Historic Prisons in Scotland

  —

  1,884.65

  How to Appeal against Listing

  —

  103.40

  Treasure Trove Annual Report

  104.58

  64.63

  Response to the Select Committee on the British Library

  —

  270.00

  Royal Parks Agency

  Royal Parks Agency Annual Report 1994

  —

  34,205.05

  Royal Parks of London by Richard Church1

  4,000.00

  nil

  Royal Parks guide books1

  32,000.00

  nil

  Agency Framework Document

  21,160.00

  1,115.00

  Agency Corporate Plan

  23,780.00

  300.00

  Royal Parks Agency Visitor's Charter

  —

  560.00

  Entertainments Programme

  5,670.00

  9,000.00

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency (HRPA)

  HM Tower of London Palace Guide3

  112,800.00

  122,500.00

  HM Tower of London Jewel House Guide3

  —

  138,000.00

  Hampton Court Palace Guide3

  71,840.00

  66,151.00

  Hampton Court Palace Functions Brochure

  —

  7,616.00

  Hampton Court Palace leaflets

  10,448.00

  9,969.00

  Kensington Palace Guide

  —

  11,500.00

  Banqueting House Guide

  —

  7,380.00

  Banqueting House Brochure Pack

  —

  11,000.00

  Banqueting House leaflet

  —

  1,150.00

  Kew Palace Guide

  —

  5,215.00

  HRPA Annual Report and Accounts

  25,275.00

  22,852.00

  262

  Title

  Cost 1993 £

  Cost 1994 £

  HRPA Marketing leaflets

  not available

  58,865.00

  Travel Trade Fanfare Magazine

  5,992.50

  4,143.00

  1 The cost of these publications is recovered through sales revenue.

  2 These costs are attributable to DNH, since they were incurred before 1 April 1993 when the Agency came into existence.

  3 The cost of these items is recovered through sales revenue.

  In respect of those White Papers, Green Papers and other publications published by HMSO, costs are borne by HMSO, which aims to recover these from sales revenue.

SCOTLAND

  Water Services
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss water services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [13462]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting representatives of COSLA on 12 June as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters. It is too early to say if water services will be discussed at that meeting.

  Joint Programmes
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the joint programmes between the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices. [13643]

  Mr. Lang
  There are no joint programmes as such between the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office, but there are various cases of close working relationships between the two Departments.

  Independent Review Commission
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for introducing an independent review commission to examine alleged miscarriages of justice along the lines of that being introduced for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [13644]

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans at present to introduce an independent review commission to examine alleged miscarriage of justice along the lines of that being introduced for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  I have appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal of Edinburgh university, to consider options for change to the procedure in Scotland. I shall decide what action to take on these matters once I have the committees report.

  Road Bridge, Kelso
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had with Borders regional council on the proposal to build a new road bridge at Kelso. [13645]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no recent discussions with Borders regional council about the proposed new bridge at Kelso. The bridge would form
  263
  part of a local road and is thus a matter for the regional council as local roads authority to consider.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the contract of Scottish Homes chairman expires. [13646]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current appointment of the chairman of Scottish Homes expires on 31 March 1996.

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will determine the section 36 planning consent for Scottish Nuclear dry fuel stores; and if he will make a statement. [13647]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend expects to reach a decision shortly about section 36 planning consent for Scottish Nuclear dry fuel stores.

  Voluntary Sector (Funding)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss their on-going funding needs. [13648]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet with representatives of the voluntary sector. Officials from the Scottish office meet regularly with representatives of the voluntary sector in the Scottish Office voluntary sector forum. The next formal meeting of the forum will take place on Wednesday 24 May.

  Woodlands Hospital, Aberdeen
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the future of Woodlands hospital, Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement. [13649]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about Grampian health boards proposals for the Woodlands hospital, Aberdeen.

  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State for Health has recently had separate meetings with relatives of some of the Woodlands residents and with Grampian Members of Parliament to discuss the future of the hospital and the health boards plans.

  In reaching a decision we shall take very careful account of all the views which have been put forward.

  Strathclyde Regional Council
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Strathclyde regional council will be allowed to transfer capital expenditure into revenue expenditure as a means of reaching his financial targets. [13650]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend announced his provisional capping principles on 29 November. He will assess all Scottish local authorities budgets against these principles once they have been received and in the light of any representations made to him.
  264

  Youth Employment
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for youth employment in Scotland. [13651]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Governments economic policies are designed to create a climate in which employers can both maintain existing jobs and create new ones. The skillseekers programme in Scotland, backed up by our youth training guarantee, gives young people the opportunity to receive high quality training, often while in employment, in the occupational area of their choice, with the prospect of a qualification and thus improved employment prospects.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in his consultation on the boundary of the new Strathclyde passenger transport authority; and how many of those favoured the existing boundary of Strathclyde region. [13652]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received 147 representations on his consultative exercise on the boundary and constitution of the proposed Strathclyde passenger transport authority. We will announce the outcome of the consultation after detailed and thorough consideration of the responses received.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last led the United Kingdom delegation to the European Union Council of Ministers; and what matters were discussed. [13653]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The last occasion when a Scottish Minister led for the United Kingdom at the European Council of Ministers was on 3 June 1994. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), then Minister for Industry in Scotland, led the UK delegation to the informal meeting of Ministers responsible for regional policy and spatial planning, when matters relating to the European structural funds were discussed.

  Mink
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of mink on Scottish wildlife. [13654]

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on the impact of mink on Scottish wildlife. The species is an active predator and established itself in the wild after escaping from mink farms as long ago as 1929. Research results indicate that the mink has generally not had the serious effect on our wildlife that was first expected. However, there is concern about its possible effect on some colonies of ground-nesting sea birds.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many public appointments he is now responsible for in Scotland; and how many people are on his list of possible candidates for such appointments. [13655]
  265
  Mr. Lang
  There were 3,656 appointments nominally within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland at 1 September 1994, including 1,895 members of childrens panels, who are recruited through the local authorities. There are currently about 4,000 names on the Scottish Office public appointments list.

  Scottish Sleeper Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had in respect of the sleeper services to Fort William and Carlisle and the Scottish sleeper services; and if he will make a statement. [13656]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for railways throughout Great Britain rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend and I have been keeping in touch with developments.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what plans he has to seek a judicial review of the decision taken by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in respect of the Fort William and Carlisle to London sleeper services and the Scotland to London motorail services; and if he will make a statement. [15130]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest estimates of additional numbers of junior doctors required to allow the agreed reductions in junior doctors hours in Scottish hospitals. [13657]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such estimates have been made. NHS employers are expected to meet the targets for junior doctors hours by measures other than recruiting additional junior doctors.

  Housing Development, Niddrie
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations led him to reject the recommendation of a Scottish Office inquiry into the housing development in the village of Niddrie; and if he will make a statement. [13658]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend does not consider that a convincing case has yet been made to justify the loss of green belt land for housing purposes in the village of Niddrie.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the trend on inward investment into(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the European Community. [13659]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The year 1994–95 is well on course to being another record year for inward investment in Scotland.

  Scotland is currently attracting inward investment projects at the rate of almost two per week.

  In 1993–94, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Industry Department helped attract to Scotland 95 inward investment projects involving planned investment of £587 million and the expected creation or safeguarding of over
  266
  11,000 jobs. All these figures represent a significant increase over the corresponding figures for 1992–93.

  At no time since LIS was set up in 1981 has Scotland secured a higher number of inward investment projects.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss its role in the development of the audio-visual industry in Scotland. [13660]

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council from time to time but has no plans to discuss the development of the audio-visual industry. The Scottish Office-funded body with the greater interest in the development of the audio-visual industry is the Scottish Film Council. Its future role is currently the subject of a review.

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the establishment of Scottish Enterprise Tayside and tourism-related projects. [13661]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The only representations that my right hon. Friend has received on these matters in recent months have been those submitted by the hon. Gentleman.

  Local Government
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change he expects in the overall numbers of staff employed by local authorities in Scotland following the introduction of single-tier local government. [13662]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The numbers of staff employed will depend on decisions yet to be made by the new authorities, but overall it is estimated that local government reorganisation could lead to a reduction of between 200 and 1,800 in the present work force of around 300,000. In addition, approximately 7,000 staff will transfer from local authorities to the new water and sewerage authorities and the Scottish Childrens Reporter Administration. Further transfers may arise as a result of proposals still under consideration for the maintenance of trunk roads.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allocation of funds he has made to Scottish Homes for 1995–96; and what proposals he has to review the way in which that sum is allocated between regions in Scotland. [13663]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have approved a development funding programme for Scottish Homes which maintains investment in 1995–96 at the 1994–95 level of over £320 million. The allocation of that programme to Scottish Homess districts is a matter for Scottish Homes.

  European Union Expenditure
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of EU expenditure in Scotland
  267
  expressed as a proportion of total tax revenue raised in Scotland; and what is the comparative figure for the rest of Great Britain. [13664]

  Mr. Kynoch
  European Community expenditure cannot be geographically identified on a comprehensive basis. However, in 1992–93, EC expenditure in Scotland in respect of my right hon. Friends programmes, together with agricultural intervention expenditure and that financed by receipts from the European social fund, is estimated to have been of the order of £370 million. In that year, revenues raised in Scotland from the four main sources—income tax, national insurance contributions, VAT and local government revenues—amounted to some £12.8 billion. For the UK as a whole, total public sector receipts from EC institutions in 1992–93 were some £2.8 billion and the revenues from the four main sources were some £153.7 billion.

  Campbeltown to Ballycastle Ferry
  Mr Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about proposals for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry. [13640]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and Moyle district council, the sponsors of the project, are at an advanced stage in consideration of the harbour works that would be required to allow this service to operate and have initiated discussions with interested shipping operators.

  Bishopbriggs (Private Prison)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Bishopbriggs is being considered as a site for a new private prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The site of the existing resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs is one of a number of sites currently being considered as a possible location for a new privately financed prison. No final decisions about the site or about the specification of a new prison have yet been made. Such decisions would require ministerial approval and would be the subject of an application for outline planning permission.

  Repair and Improvement Grants
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes in each district and islands area of Scotland are ineligible for grant aid towards the cost of repairs and improvements because of the application of the rateable value threshold for that area; and what proportion of the private housing stock that represents for each area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Rateable value limits were introduced in 1974 with the intention of excluding from grant assistance some 20 per cent. of homes in each housing authority district. The actual numbers excluded may have varied over time. The limits are not an absolute bar on entitlement to grant. They are waived where local authorities take action on houses in the worst condition or where lead plumbing is to be replaced or levels of radon gas reduced. Neither are they applied for works to adapt a house for a disabled person.

  Empty Commercial Property
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the decision to implement 268
  the proposals to levy 50 per cent. rates on empty commercial property.

  Mr. Lang
  No. With effect from 1 April 1995, a national non-domestic rate will apply in Scotland at the same level as the unified business rate in England. The valuation methods used at the 1995 revaluation will also now be harmonised across the border and certain express harmonisation measures, for example the rating of plant and machinery, will also take effect on 1 April 1995. The new provisions on the rating of unoccupied property in Scotland are just one of those measures and bring the position into line with that which has existed in England and Wales since 1990.

  The Government believe that the net effect of the harmonisation of the Scottish rating system with that in England and Wales will be of great benefit to Scottish business.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the imposition of 50 per cent. rates on empty commercial property on the competitiveness of the firms affected.

  Mr. Lang
  We have no evidence that the competitiveness of companies will be affected by this measure. Parallel provisions already exist in England and Wales and this is part of the overall process of harmonisation to put Scottish businesses in a similar situation to their competitors south of the border.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions were issued in the Grampian health board area for each of the last five years; and how many were exempt from payment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows the total number of prescriptions presented for dispensing and the number for which no charge was made. The number of prescriptions issued to patients but not presented for dispensing is unknown.

  The number of prescriptions for which no charge was made at the point of dispensing includes items dispensed on presentation of pre-payment certificates.

  Financial year

  Total number of prescriptions dispensed

  Number of prescriptions for which no charge made at point of dispensing

  1989–90

  3,813,054

  3,020,258

  1990–91

  3,898,337

  3,111,925

  1991–92

  4,007,418

  3,211,843

  1992–93

  4,137,204

  3,328,756

  1993–94

  4,288,124

  3,497,826

  Government Expenditure and Revenue
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an updated version of the 1992 document, Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall keep this possibility under review.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of local authority direct
  269
  labour organisations will be affected by his decision to exclude DLOs from tendering for the management and maintenance contracts for the primary route network due to go to tender in September of this year: and how many of them will lose their jobs as a result of this exclusion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities are not excluded from tendering for contracts for the future management and maintenance of any part of the trunk road network and, therefore, there are no implications for staff employed by local authority DLOs arising from any exclusion.

  Lomond Health Trust
  Mr. John McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the name of the chairman of the Lomond Health trust and detail his or her qualifications for the post. [15129]

  Mr. James Douglas-Hamilton
  A press release announcing Mr. Stephen P. Newall from Rhu, Dunbartonshire as chairman of the Lomond Healthcare NHS trust was issued on 7 March 1995. He was appointed to the post because of his distinguished track record of leadership in the public and private sectors.

  Jobseekers Allowance
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the current 21-hour rule enabling unemployed people to study while receiving benefit will be reduced to 16 guided learning hours when the jobseekers allowance is introduced in Scotland; what difference there will be in the treatment of unemployed people who take up places in either further or higher education courses, and if he will make a statement. [15160]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  People claiming jobseekers Allowance will be able to take part-time courses provided they remain available for and are actively seeking employment. In the case of further education courses, it has been decided that for those funded by the Further Education Funding Council for England, part-time courses will be defined as courses of up to 16 guided learning hours a week. Because the concept of guided learning hours does not apply to Scottish, further education consideration is being given to what similar arrangements will apply in Scotland. They will be designed to ensure that broadly the same number of people benefit from this concession as at present.

  For higher education courses, it is expected that the definition of a part-time course will remain essentially unchanged.

  Farming Community (Suicides)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many suicides there have been in the Scottish farming community in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14214]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The General Register Office, Scotland, compiles figures for suicide where the occupation of the deceased was classified as farmer, farmers wife or farm worker. This information for the most recent five years available is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number

  19

  16

  18

  19

  17

  270
  The Scottish Office is working with other agencies to raise the general awareness of conditions associated with suicidal behaviour.

  Forestry
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares the Forestry Commission has planted in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [15030]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area planted (hectares)

  1985

  11,021

  1986

  11,630

  1987

  13,380

  1988

  13,129

  1989

  12,580

  1990

  11,946

  1991

  11,137

  1992

  11,259

  1993

  10,830

  1994

  9,289

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients failed to attend out-patient appointments in Scotland on each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [15111]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of new out-patient appointments where the patient failed to attend is shown in the table. Corresponding information is not available centrally for return out-patients.

  New out-patient referrals—patients who did not attend

  Date

  Number

  1992

  120,054

  1993

  132,498

  1994

  134,207

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply from the chief executive of the West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant; [15195]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a substantive reply from the chief executive of the East and Midlothian NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant; [15198]

  (3) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply from the chief executive of the Fife Healthcare NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant; [15199]

  (4) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply from the chief executive of the Edinburgh

  271
  Sick Childrens NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant; [15200]

  (5) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply from the chief executive of the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant; [15201]

  (6) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply from the chief executive of the Stobhill General Hospitals NHS trust to his letter of 9 February concerning the expenditure of the trusts start-up grant. [15202]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that the chief executives of the West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS trust, the Edinburgh Sick Childrens NHS trust and the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust have not responded to the hon. Member. The chief executive of the East and Midlothian NHS trust, the Fife Healthcare NHS trust and Stobhill NHS trust have indicated that they will reply before the end of March.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the chair, chief executive and correspondence addresses of each of Scotlands NHS trusts; [15206]

  (2) if he will list the executive and non-executive directors of each of Scotlands NHS trusts. [15207]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested in respect of the 39 NHS trusts is rather lengthy, I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been issued to NHS trusts about replying to correspondence from hon. Members with particular reference to the time scale for response. [15208]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific guidelines have been issued to NHS trusts concerning replies to correspondence from hon. Members.

  Quangos
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has carried out into the employment background of members of quangos operating in Scotland. [15196]

  Mr. Lang
  None. I am aware of the background of persons whom I am appointing to non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies at the time when I make the appointments.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are adopted by his Department in recruiting individuals to the membership of quangos. [15197]

  Mr. Lang
  The relevant procedures are set out in the Cabinet Office publication Guide on Public Appointment Procedures, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The recent Review of Guidance on Public Appointments, published on 6 February and also available in the Library, has recommended a number of changes to make these procedures more effective. The Government have accepted these recommendations and have instructed Departments to implement them, subject to any other changes which may be necessary in the light 272
  of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many quangos operate within Scotland; and what is the total annual expenditure of these bodies in each year since 1978–79. [15203]

  Mr. Lang
  A full list of non-departmental public bodies, nationalised industries and NHS bodies sponsored by my Department at 1 April 1994 is published in the Cabinet Office publication, Public Bodies 1994, which is available in the Library of the House. A full list of non-departmental public bodies in existence for each year since 1979 is available in the following publications: Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies—Pliatzky report, Cm 7797, January 1980; Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1980; Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1981; and Public Bodies, published annually since 1982. This publication shows the gross expenditure of each body and the amount of that expenditure funded by central government. Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quangos currently in operation in Scotland. [15204]

  Mr. Lang
  A list of the non-departmental public bodies, nationalised industries and NHS bodies sponsored by my Department at 1 April 1994 is shown in the Cabinet Office publication, Public Bodies 1994, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quangos which have been established in Scotland in each financial year since 1978–79. [15205]

  Mr. Lang
  Lists have been prepared centrally for each year from 1986 to 1993 of non-departmental public bodies which have been created and abolished. Copies are available in the Library of the House. Such summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 were not prepared and could be reconstructed only at disproportionate cost. Between 1 April 1993 and 1 April 1994, the following bodies were added to the list of Scottish Office-sponsored non-departmental public bodies: Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Further Education Unit, Post Qualification Board for Health Service Pharmacists in Scotland.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the grounds for refusal of an application by a tenant under the right to buy legislation. [14542]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: There are certain safeguards within the right to buy provisions to permit local authorities to retain a stock of houses which are required for specific purposes.

  Under section 61(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 the right to buy does not apply to groups of houses provided with facilities—including a call system and a warden service—specially designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled people. These are generally known as sheltered housing.

  Section 69 of the Act gives public sector landlords discretion to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to refuse to sell houses with features suitable for

  273
  occupation by persons of pensionable age. Such houses must have facilities which make them substantially different from those of an ordinary house.

  An application to purchase may also be refused under schedule 2 to the 1987 Act where the tenant is required to live in the house as a consequence of his employment for the better performance of his duties; or where the house forms part of a building, or comes within the boundaries of another building, which is held by the authority mainly for purposes other than housing.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Scottish Office has made of the average profit which is made by an owner-occupier when the owner sells a former council property purchased under the right to buy legislation. [14530]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The Scottish Office does not collect information on the resale price of former council property. When a former council house is sold, the difference between the right to buy discounted price and the price obtained in a sale on the open market will depend on various factors; including the original level of discount, the marketability of the property, and the state of the housing market at the time.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate for each local authority in Scotland(a) the number of dwellings they currently own, (b) the number of properties sold under the right to buy legislation and (c) the number of properties sold as a percentage of their total housing stock listed in descending order. [14531]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: Information on the number of dwellings owned by local authorities is published in the statistical bulletin HSG/1994/9 Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 30 June 1994. Information on the number of local authority dwellings sold to sitting tenants by each local authority, including those sold under the right to buy legislation, is published each quarter in the same statistical bulletin series. The series is available in the House Library.

  Local Authority Housing Construction
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new dwellings have been constructed by local authorities for each financial year in Scotland since 1979–80. [14532]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of new dwellings built

  1979–80

  4,818

  1980–81

  5,199

  1981–82

  3,141

  1982–83

  2,222

  1983–84

  2,470

  1984–85

  2,024

  1985–86

  1,880

  1986–87

  1,678

  1987–88

  2,021

  274

  Year

  Number of new dwellings built

  1988–89

  1,818

  1989–90

  1,243

  1990–91

  987

  1991–92

  1,030

  1992–93

  580

  1993–94

  494

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much revenue the Scottish Office has made available for new house building in each financial year since 1979–80 for each local authority in Scotland. [14533]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: Capital allocations of over £5.9 billion have been issued to local authorities since 1979–80 for investment to meet local housing needs as shown in the table. It is for local authorities themselves to determine how to allocate the resources made available to them between the improvement of their stock and new house building.

  The annual publication, Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics, which is held in the Library of the House, provides information on capital expenditure by local authorities on new house building.

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent on central administration and policy formulation by his Department in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14256]

  Mr. Lang
  Details of my Departments running costs and administrative spending for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 7.1 of the Scottish Office departmental report, Cm 2814, a copy of which is available in the Members Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent of preparatory costs for GP fundholders for each health board area in Scotland for each year since the introduction of GP fundholding. [14496]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The information requested is not available centrally. Health board returns on the money disbursed to support the operational costs of GP fundholders in their area do not differentiate between GP practices who are operational fundholders and those in their preparatory period.

  A preparatory fundholding practice is entitled to claim an allowance up to a maximum level—£17,500 in 1994–95. A practice may also claim reimbursement for the installation and other associated costs of computer equipment, which is agreed by the health board as being essential to their participation in fundholding. Finance for this reimbursement expenditure comes from the health boards cash-limited GMS allocation for computer expenditure. It is the responsibility of health boards to monitor the cost-effectiveness of each preparatory fundholding practices use of such preparatory costs, as

  275
  part of the health boards statutory role in monitoring the overall performance of GP fundholders.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  Environment Department

  Survey of Homeless Applicants

  June-July 1993

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd

  To examine the operation of the code of guidance on homelessness.

  Edinburgh Castle Visitors Survey (Historic Scotland)

  May-December 1993

  System Three Scotland

  To provide information on visitors to The Castle, their attitudes to services and facilities and to identify priorities for improving these facilities.

  Baseline study of good practice in housing management

  1994

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd

  To provide a description of housing management practice in Scotland as a baseline against which to measure implementation of the tenants charter.

  Awareness of Right to Buy and Rents to Mortgages

  March-April 1994

  System Three Scotland

  To identify tenants' awareness of right to buy schemes.

  Public Knowledge and Perception of Local Government

  September 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  To ascertain current public knowledge and awareness of local government, public perceptions of remoteness accessibility and their identification with local government units as a baseline for monitoring change.

  Rural Community Development Study

  February 1994

  System Three Scotland

  To provide a baseline picture of life in four representative rural areas in order to monitor change and the impact of rural policy initiatives.

  Water and Sewerage

  March/August 1994

  Market Research Scotland

  To test the comprehensibility of the design and contents of the information leaflet; to evaluate recall of the contents and purpose of leaflet.

  Sustainable Development

  September 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  To investigate public awareness and understanding of the concept of sustainable development.

  Evaluation of GRO-Grants

  November 1994—March 1995

  Centre for Housing Research and Urban Studies, Glasgow University

  To assess the extent to which GRO-grants have met their objectives.

  Awareness of Right to Buy and Rents to Mortgages Schemes

  February 1995

  System Three Scotland

  To determine the level of awareness among tenants of the RTB and RTM schemes.

  Rural Transport Study

  March-April 1995

  The TAS Partnership

  To establish the type and range of rural transport options and consider how they could be pursued more effectively in rural Scotland.

  Home and Health Department

  Survey of users' experiences of the NHS in Scotland

  November-December 1992

  MORI Ltd

  To measure how well the commitments in the patients charter were being delivered and whether the standards of service met expectations of the users.

  276
  years, on the organisations employed by his Departments, 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. [14512]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The information requested is shown in the table. The fee paid to individual contractors is commercially confidential and therefore cannot be detailed. The total cost of the 40 surveys listed was £1.153 million.
  277

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  Car Crime

  November 1992

  Research Resources

  To determine amongst car users the steps taken to prevent car crime; their perception of car crime compared with other crimes; awareness and effectiveness of the "Hyena" campaign.

  Scottish Crime Survey

  December 1992—December 1993

  The MVA Consultancy

  Provide alternative indicator of the level and extent of household and personal victimisation in Scotland; provide information about public perceptions and experiences of crime and the criminal justice system more generally.

  Fire Prevention

  February/March 1993—February 1994

  Research Resources

  To measure awareness and understanding of the television commercial and assess the impact of the commercial in motivating householders to maintain their smoke alarms.

  Information Needs of Victims

  January-August 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  Collect information on current provision of information to victims; provide overview of experience and needs of victims with reference to information provided by criminal justice agencies and identify gaps between needs and actual provision; identify what information could specifically be provided by the fiscal service and in what form.

  Domestic Violence Media Campaign

  July-December 1994

  System Three Scotland

  Assess the extent of public awareness and comprehension of Scottish Office domestic violence media campaign.

  Survey of users' experiences of the NHS in Scotland

  May-June 1994

  MORI Ltd

  To measure progress being made in delivering the commitments made in the Patient's Charter about the standards of service people should expect from the NHS in Scotland.

  European Drug Prevention Week 1994

  October 1994

  System Three Scotland

  Awareness of EDPW among eight to 21-year-olds.

  Fire Safety Week 1994

  Ongoing

  Progressive Research

  Processing of research on smoke alarms undertaken by fire brigades during Fire Safety Week.

  Maternity Services

  October 1992—October 1993

  Mrs. Yvonne Bostock (Independent Consultant)

  To explore women's views on topics concerned with the provision of maternity care in Scotland; to confirm that CRAG-SCOTMEG Consumer Group's Interpretation of the existing research corresponded with women's views and expectations of the services; to provide a sound basis for the group to form recommendations on women's expectations of services.

  Civil Court Users

  June-July 1992

  The MVA Consultancy

  To establish public perception of non-judicial aspects of civil business in the sheriff court.

  Industry Department

  Evaluation of "Cars Kill" TV Campaign

  June-November 1993

  System Three Scotland

  To evaluate the "Cars Kill" TV campaign through testing children's awareness and attitudes to this campaign, and to other related national road safety campaigns and general road safety issues.

  278 279

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  Hotel Signposting Evaluation

  July-November 1993

  The MVA Consultancy

  To investigate inter alia whether the provision of new accommodation signs improve ease of access for visitors and guests and to monitor whether these signs are associated with an increase in occupancy rates.

  Scottish Drivers' Attitudes to Speeding Survey

  December 1993-June 1994

  Market Research Scotland Ltd

  To detect any changes in the attitudes of Scottish drivers towards speeding since November 1991 and to explore reasons for these changes.

  Evaluation of Year of the Elderly Road Safety Campaign

  January 1994 (Part 1) February-April 1994 (Part 2)

  System Three Scotland The MVA Consultancy

  To evaluate the effectiveness of the Scottish Road Safety Campaign's initiatives in support of European Year of the Elderly.

  Setting Forth: Stated Preference Survey

  June 1993

  Oscar Faber TPA

  To provide the data necessary to model the impact of toll increases on driver behaviour across the Firth of Forth.

  An Evaluation of Scotland's National Tourist Routes

  June-November 1994

  Colin Buchanan and Partners

  To evaluate the effectiveness of the national tourist routes in encouraging a wider spread of tourist traffic, and to measure the availability of STB and ATB promotional material relating to the NTRs.

  Urban Partnership Household Surveys (Wester Hailes, Whitfield, Ferguslie Park)

  March 1993-May 1994

  Social and Community Planning Research

  Repeat of household surveys carried out in 1989–90 in order to evaluate the impact of the urban partnerships now that initiatives are five years old.

  Urban Partnership Household Surveys (Castlemilk)

  March-May 1994

  Public Attitude Surveys

  —

  Evaluation of Theatre Tours

  July 1994-March 1995

  The Scottish Council for Research in Education

  To evaluate the effectiveness of theatre tours as a medium for road safety education.

  Evaluation of "Cars Kill" Cinema

  October-December 1994

  Market Research Scotland

  To evaluate the Scottish Road Safety Campaign's "Cars Kill" advertising in the cinema.

  Drivers' Attitude to the new Variable Message System on trial around the Forth Estuary

  February/March 1995

  Oscar Faber TPA

  To establish the relevancy and effectiveness of the message content shown on the VMS which is currently being trialled around the Forth estuary.

  Year of the Young Driver 1995

  January-February 1995

  System Three Scotland

  Testing creative development of advertising scripts.

  Education Department

  Further and Higher Education Charter for Scotland

  October-November 1992

  British Market Research Bureau

  To identify issues of importance to current and potential students, their parents, and the general public to help shape the priorities of the charter.

  School Education

  April-October 1993

  Social Community and Planning Research

  To provide information on the public's attitudes towards, and expectations of, school education at senior stages for an international study under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  280 281

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  Crofting

  January-April 1993

  Independent Northern Consultants

  To obtain information on the aspirations of crofters for the future, and ways in which the Crofters Commission may help to meet these aspirations.

  Marketing and processing of agricultural products and related services in the Highlands and Islands

  June 1994

  Euro Access

  To identify whether the successor to the rural enterprise programme should include support for marketing of agricultural products. The study involved surveys of farmers and applicants under previous schemes.

  An evaluation of the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants Scheme

  March-July 1995

  St. Andrew's Economic Consultants

  To examine the extent to which CCAGS is achieving the objectives of the Scheme and to provide information which would help assess possible policy options for the future.

  Central Services

  The Scottish Office Central Enquiry Unit

  July-December 1993

  Research Resources

  To assess the impact of the press advertisement on awareness and on motivating the public to use the enquiry unit; determining the public's understanding of the role of the Scottish Office.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Summit for Social Development
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support the proposal put forward by the United Nations Development Programme to the world summit for social development, requiring donor states to devote a minimum of 20 per cent. of their development assistance to meeting basic human needs. [14916]

  Mr. Baldry
  The world summit for social development declaration called for greater efforts to be made, by donors and developing countries, to help meet basic social needs. We welcome this: the whole of the United Kingdom aid programme is about helping people in poorer countries to improve their lives.

  Common definitions and measures of basic social needs have yet to be established in the international development context—we stand ready to support further work in this area.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimates about the number of people in Sierra Leone who have been displaced and the number who have become refugees. [14852]

  Mr. Baldry
  According to the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, there are currently 500,000 to 700,000 internally displaced persons in Sierra Leone; in addition it is estimated that, as at the beginning of March 282
  1995, there were over 200,000 Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea and a further 120,000 refugees in Liberia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British aid organisations are still active in Sierra Leone; and which have withdrawn because of the security situation. [14846]

  Mr. Baldry
  British NGOs still active in Sierra Leone are Action Aid, CARE (UK), Concern Universal, the British Red Cross and the Methodist Church Overseas Division. Christian Aid, CAFOD and Village Aid are providing help through local organisations.

  Voluntary Service Overseas and Water Aid have recently withdrawn for security reasons.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for international assistance have been made by the Government of Sierra Leone. [14849]

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been no official appeal for international assistance by the Government of Sierra Leone.

  UNHCR
  Mr. Gary Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to the general programmes budget of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in 1995.

  Mr. Baldry
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has approved a grant of £6 million for UNHCRs general programmes budget for 1995. The UK is one of the foremost national donors of UNHCR; last year our contributions, both in direct payments and assistance in kind, exceeded £60 million in value, the highest level of contribution ever.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Chelmsford.

Somalia
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now their policy on relief and development in Somalia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we shall continue to fund relief and rehabilitation projects through NGOs and UN agencies in areas where security permits.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that in north-west Somalia there has been a surprising degree of stability? What have the British Government been able to do to support humanitarian and development operations in the north west? Are there any circumstances in which, in the absence of effective central government in Somalia as a whole, Britain might contemplate recognising the claim to secession of the people in the north west?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on the first part of the question, we did of course have an NGO liaison officer in Hargeisa throughout last year until November when he had to be recalled because of the security situation. I am glad to tell the House that he re-established his office in Hargeisa on 19th March. He will continue to help the NGOs to focus on the rehabilitation of basic health and education. We must realise, however, that the NGOs are doing that against a background of the fighting still going on; 40 people were killed outside Hargeisa only a few days ago. As for any question of recognising the secession of north-west Somalia, it is much too early to talk in those terms. It is not something we have ever felt was right to do. What we hope to see is a coming together and reconciliation of the people of Somalia as a whole.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in the Minister's view, what lessons have been learnt from the history of UN attempts to find a solution in Somalia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the main lesson is that one cannot operate in a country where two or more groups are determined to continue fighting unless one is almost prepared to take sides. One of the difficulties faced by UNOSOM, which worked extremely well there for a number of months, was that it could never get an agreement with both sides which the clans kept. That has always been a problem. I should like to pay tribute to the UN agencies which have
1218
worked there and which continue to work in Somalia as a whole, which is something the people seem to have forgotten.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister aware of reports from Africa Watch that Kenya has been the source of supplies of arms to some of the disruptive elements in the south of Somalia, particularly the Darod military factions? Will Her Majesty's Government investigate that and make representations to Kenya to ensure that that covert activity ceases?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, Kenya has been subjected to an incredible amount of pressure by the filtering of arms from Somalia into Kenya. If there were any truth in the allegation about the supply of arms from Kenya into Somalia, I am certain that the Government of Kenya would want nothing to do with it. One of the tragedies is that far too many arms are circulating in that whole area.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister in agreement with the policies of the international NGOs? What has been done by the ODA to strengthen the local network?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord could have been listening to what I said at the beginning. Our NGO liaison officer was there throughout most of last year until security in Hargeisa made it impossible for him to remain. Our staff have been working in Mogadishu throughout the troubles, helping those NGOs which have been brave enough to stay there. I heard only this morning that CARE International is putting expatriate staff back into Mogadishu at a time when things are not yet certain. We have been supporting the NGOs, and we intend to do so for as long as it is safe to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it looks as though the departure of the UN has forced the war lords in Mogadishu itself to come to some agreement. What is the Minister's prognosis for the security situation in the capital?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, whatever has forced the war lords to come together, they may stay together or drift apart as they have in the past. But far be it from me to try to predict anything about Somalia. I have lived with the problem for far too long to take such an unwise step.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that she has the support of the whole House in everything that she is trying to do in this difficult situation? Does she agree that one of the grave problems in Somalia has been the anarchy and the protection rackets? Is it not essential that those involved in non-governmental organisations, government and UN programmes, and so forth, work closely together to resist such exploitation? What is being done to achieve that wider co-ordination?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: resisting the pressures of protection rackets has been one of the hardest aspects. In the early days of UNOSOM great efforts were made by British nationals in the area and people from the United Nations

1219
to control the situation. However, during the second half of last year the situation again went from bad to worse. I shall look further into the present situation, but I can say that wherever non-governmental organisations are working they should always seek to resist protection rackets. The difficulty is that, if a single one gives way, all the rest are vulnerable, which has been the problem with which we have had to deal.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I hope that I do not embarrass the Minister by asking whether she is aware that her answers have been a mixture of clarity and concern, like a glass of refreshing spring water.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I take my bow. Thank you.

Privatised Industries: Role of Regulators
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent developments in the gas and electricity industries, they will set up a commission to examine and report on the role of regulators in the privatised industries.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, no. The Government believe that the regulatory system for the privatised utilities has provided significant benefits to the economy and the consumer and do not intend to establish such a commission.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement made last week by Miss Clare Spottiswoode, the gas regulator, in which she admitted that she was not accountable to anyone and called for a public debate on the subject of regulators? She added:
"The annual report supplied to Parliament is not worth the paper it is written on".
Does that suggest that there is any accountability on the part of regulators? Will the Minister comment on the fact that the regulator in the electricity industry published price-sensitive information after a £4 billion sale of shares in National Grid and PowerGen, with serious consequences for the City of London?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me two questions. My attention has not been drawn to the remarks of Clare Spottiswoode and I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing so. However, I cannot agree with her assertion because the regulator is subject to the possibility of judicial review. He, or in this case she, is accountable through the scrutiny of Select Committees, which can and should require the regulators to give an account of their performance. The regulatory offices are also subject to periodic National Audit Office review into the conduct of their business. Finally, the regulator cannot change a firm's licence in the face of opposition, and disputes are referred to the MMC.
1220
The noble Lord asked about the electricity regulator. On 3rd March the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice on the share sale prospectus and its accuracy. It received legal and financial advice that even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. They are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. In the light of that advice, the decision was taken to go ahead.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister referred to the benefits that have accrued to the consumers as a result of the actions of the regulators. Is he aware that North West Water has recently inflicted an increase on its consumers of three times the increase in the cost of living? Does he believe that in those circumstances domestic consumers in the area such as myself have been protected by the regulator? It would appear that the regulator has done nothing whatever in that respect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Question relates to the gas and electricity industries. However, as regards the water industry, no one can deny that water prices have increased. They were increased for a good reason; that a huge amount of investment was required to improve the quality not only of our drinking water but of the disposal of our waste water. In the five years since privatisation, water companies have invested £15 billion in various capital projects. That is a 75 per cent. real increase over the five years prior to privatisation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue goes even deeper than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe? The privatised utilities are no longer in the public sector but are they really in the private sector? They provide basic services and in many cases they exert monopolistic characteristics. Is it not time that this important sector of British industry was looked at again?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether the noble Lord is pinning the Liberal Democrat Party's colours to renationalisation, but never mind. Looking again at the question of privatisation seems to invite that kind of conclusion.
The regulatory system has been set up to provide a two-pronged approach: first, to promote competition where that is possible; and secondly, to ensure that consumers are protected by a strong economic regulator. If one looks at the industries involved, the results in terms of lower prices, improved services and performance speak for themselves.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not read the speech of Clare Spottiswoode, and I urge him to do so. The noble Lord referred to the fact that she has appeared before Select Committees. In fact, she said in that speech that she had appeared before four and they all had diametrically opposed views. That means, as she indicated, that there is not a proper accountability of regulators. Of course, the Government are not responsible because, quite rightly, the regulators

1221
are independent of government; but will the Minister consider looking at the operation of regulators, which is precisely what that senior regulator suggests?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously I should not like to trespass on the affairs of another place by commenting on whether or not the regulator should appear before one Select Committee rather than before four Select Committees which, if the noble Lord is to be believed—and I am sure he is, as he always is—have all reached diametrically opposed conclusions. I suppose that that is north, south, east and west. I shall certainly look at that point and draw it to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends in the Treasury.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Eastern Electricity. Does my noble friend agree that the fact that in the five years since privatisation in 1990 the price of electricity to the domestic consumer from Eastern Electricity, at any rate, has actually fallen by 7 per cent. in real terms is itself a measure of the success of privatisation?
Does my noble friend further agree that as the non-domestic customers, the commercial customers, have done even better it would be desirable for the regulator to focus his attention on achieving a still better deal for the domestic consumer? The way to do that is not, as has been suggested in some places, to try to claw back large sums of money because that was tried some years ago by the Government on Ferranti after Bloodhound and was catastrophic for everyone concerned.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the second part of my noble friend's question is directed more at the regulator and I am sure that he will read it.
My noble friend is absolutely right that the greater efficiency of the electricity industry since privatisation has already produced enormous benefits for the consumer, in total contradiction to the words of a certain Mr. Tony Blair who said before privatisation that:
"It is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation".
How wrong can you be? Those prices have fallen and there is every indication that they will continue to fall in real terms.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene between two such prominent Members of different parties but perhaps it would be appropriate to hear from the Opposition Front Bench, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will have an opportunity to ask his question after that.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 7 per cent. fall in electricity prices referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is considerably lower than the fall in the real cost of fuel, which has been about 12 per cent. over that period? Therefore, Eastern Electricity's performance looks rather poor. Surely the key question concerning those industries is why the Government have created a structure of cosy,
1222
bloated, imperfectly regulated private monopolies instead of creating a framework of effective competition, which is the real way in which to empower the consumer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I mentioned in my second reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, there is a two-pronged approach by the regulators and one of the prongs is to encourage competition where that is possible. It ill behoves the noble Lord from the Benches opposite to talk about increasing prices when, during the time of the last Labour Government, electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was merely asking why the Minister was being so modest in detailing the benefits to consumers, and everyone else, but missing out the benefits to those at the top of the industry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government have made their position clear on excessive and unjustified salary increases at whatever level they take place, including boardrooms. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place that he looks forward to Sir Richard Greenbury's report and that the Government are prepared to consider whether legislative changes are required.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, discussions on this Question have emphasised certain aspects of the privatised monopolies, so to speak. From the point of view of the consumer, things have never been better. Ask working women.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am afraid that the groans coming from your Lordships' House all come from the males. In the past, working women lost days of work because they had to stay at home to deal with the electrician or the gas man. Now they can make an appointment. Is that not an improvement and should that not be acknowledged?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. A number of improvements have taken place since privatisation. As far as I understand it, that improvement is now accepted by the party opposite, whose leader is at this very moment going round the country advocating the abolition of the policy of nationalisation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that this is a matter which attracts enormous interest but there are two important Questions yet to be answered.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton: Only one.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in that case, I shall withdraw as elegantly as I am able to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question on the Order Paper is concerned simply with the effectiveness of regulation? Is he aware

1223
that 20 per cent. of the economy of this country—the commanding heights of the economy—are now regulated? We have had 10 years of regulation. I am merely asking that the Government or a commission should examine the operation of the regulators.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained, we believe that the regulatory system in those important industries—and I noticed the throwback from yesteryear with the mention of "commanding heights"—are doing a good job. They are working within the rules laid down by Parliament. Those were improved in a recent Act which updated the powers of the regulators to the level of the most powerful of the regulators. What the consumer is now receiving shows not only the success of the regulator but, in my view much more important, the success of privatisation.

Fisheries Dispute: Spain and Canada
2.58 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the current fisheries dispute between Spain and Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, as members of both the Commonwealth and the EU, the UK is in a unique position in this affair. Therefore, we are actively working with all parties to reduce tension, to avoid further confrontation and to encourage sensible negotiation.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Will he tell the House why the Government were so ready to align themselves with European Union threats of action against Canada, which was only doing its best to protect its fisheries, in the light of the real concerns felt in this country about the activities of Spanish trawlers in our waters?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we took the stance that we did because Canada decided to act in a confrontational way, having taken the law into its own hands, and in seeking to impose a formula for sharing the agreed total allowable catch for Greenland halibut. In our view, that is not a sensible way in which to resolve an honest disagreement. It is now our task to mediate. We believe that we have made a useful contribution to that process.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem in this altercation is not a question of the allowable taking of stocks? Indeed, it is a problem of enforcement of the allowables already agreed to by the North West Atlantic Fishery Organisation. Will the Minister further agree that the negotiations taking place at present in Brussels, to which he referred, and sponsored by the Government in the person of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, would not, perhaps, have had the same impetus
1224
and importance if Canada had not taken what many of us consider to be an appropriate action to enforce the principles laid down two years ago?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that one of the lessons to come out of the affair has been the need to improve enforcement. We are fully committed to doing that in the forthcoming negotiations. However, the problem is not the total allowable catch of Greenland halibut—indeed, that has been decided—but how to share out the catch. Canada wanted the EU to reduce catches by more than 90 per cent. to some 3,000 tonnes. Based on its recent track record, the EU was prepared to accept a reduction of 58 per cent., compared with 1993, to some 18,630 tonnes. That difference of view must be resolved at the negotiating table and not by force. I very much welcome the signs that Canada is willing to talk about possible reallocation of quotas.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the great majority of people in this country stood aghast at the spectacle of the British Government, without any apparent consultation, taking sides with Spain and the EU; and, indeed, supporting a country that has been shown to be a fish pirate nation which has depredated stocks everywhere in the world, including the North Sea? People were aghast that, in the year of the 50th anniversary of the end of the last war, the British Government should side with Spain against a Commonwealth country, remembering that many Canadians died in defence of freedom throughout the world while the Spanish were in fact giving moral, if not tangible, support to Hitler and the Nazis.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Canada is one of this country's oldest and most important friends.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Howe: My Lords, therefore we owe Canada a duty to provide constructive help at times of difficulty. We did not hesitate to do that here; indeed, we have done so by working with the Canadians in order to bring about a negotiated settlement. The Canadian Government know that we have been doing our utmost to help them and they have been kind enough to say so.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether reports are true that the "Estai" was carrying illegally small nets and that it had secret compartments for the storage of immature fish? If that is true—or likely to be true—what arrangements can be made to ensure that the same thing does not happen when the Spanish are fishing in British waters?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the "Estai" cut away her nets in order to avoid arrest by a Canadian coastguard vessel acting outside the NAFO inspection scheme. Canada says that it has recovered the nets and that they do not comply with NAFO minimum mesh sizes. Canada also claims to have discovered a hidden compartment containing illegal catches. The details have not yet been made fully available to the European Commission. However, the "Estai" will be inspected by the Commission inspectorate when she returns to port tomorrow. If the allegations turn out to be true, that

1225
would be a very serious matter upon which it would be right for action to be taken through the agreed enforcement scheme for the North West Atlantic.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the total EU catch in the area of the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation was 2,000 tonnes five years ago, but has now increased to 82,000 tonnes? Can the Minister say how much of that increase is due to increased activity by the Spanish fishing fleet?
Earl Howe: My Lords, unfortunately, I cannot confirm those figures. However, I shall check them and write to the noble Lord. I can say that it has been recognised by all parties to NAFO that conservation must be the way forward. That is why a conservative total allowable catch for Greenland halibut was this year set at 27,000 tonnes. That was a conservative figure, bearing in mind that known stocks would have permitted a higher figure.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would my noble friend be prepared to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister my suggestion that Canada should be asked to lend us its Minister of Fisheries to take part in our own Cabinet, so that we would have someone in Brussels who would stand up for British fishermen as powerfully as the Canadian Minister has stood up for the interests of Canadian fishermen?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not in the least apologetic about the way in which our own fisheries Ministers, my right honourable friend and my honourable friend, have stood up for British interests in Brussels. They have done so very effectively over recent weeks. I am quite sure that they are committed to carrying on doing so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that the actions of the Spanish fishermen, both in the Irish Box and in Canada, are bringing the whole of the European Union into disrepute? It seems very odd that people who stood by us from Paardeberg to Vimy and from Dieppe to Normandy should be treated in that shabby way. Perhaps my noble friend might care to change the words of Queen Elizabeth I at Tilbury to read:
"I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of [Canada] too; and [pour] foul scorn [on Bonino] … or [all the princes of the Commission who] dare to invade the borders of my realm".
Perhaps we could then get some guts into this Government.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot hope to outdo my noble friend's eloquence. However, I should just emphasise to him that the Canadians are important friends and allies; we do no service to them by being, so to speak, starry-eyed about recent events. That is neither constructive nor mature. In the words of the old song, what we have to do is to:
"Accentuate the positive [and] Eliminate the negative".
There are aspects of the NAFO arrangements that could do with improvement. We must take that process one step at a time.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, if the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages tomorrow.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Nations: 50th Anniversary
3.10 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Organisation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate and to discuss one of the great historic events of this century; namely, the formation of the United Nations Organisation. The world had then suffered the anguish of two great wars and, like many noble Lords, I remember the aftermath of the first war and our belief that it had been the war to end wars. This fervent hope was reflected in the League of Nations, and I recall the meetings which were held in the halls and chapels of North Wales to support the League, and its objective,
"to achieve international peace and security and to avoid war."
The memorial stone was there in every town and village to remember the losses and to support the League of Nations. The collapse of the League in the shadow of the Second World War was the great failure of this century, although it had some secondary successes in the fields of labour and health.
But it was essential 50 years ago that the reasons for the League's failure to prevent war should be learnt, and the leaders set out to study the scene and the shortcomings of the past. We must therefore be grateful today to those who brought the nations together and to those who drafted the United Nations Charter, which provided a better framework than the League's Covenant, both in its general statements of principle and in its procedures in the area of international security. The new charter was ratified on the 24th day of October

1227
1945. Let us not forget that the first General Assembly, with its membership of 51 nations, was held here in Central Hall Westminster on 10th January 1946.
But the central question we must ask in this important debate is to what extent the United Nations has succeeded in achieving its objectives over the past 50 years. It is of course a vast organisation—the greatest the world has ever seen. From the 51 countries which formed the United Nations in 1945, the membership today consists of 185 states and they represent 99.3 per cent. of the world's population. The United Nations budget is inevitably huge. In 1993 it exceeded 5.2 billion US dollars and that excluded the specialised agencies. Those agencies have their own budgets and constitutions, and there are 16 of them. They, as the House knows, perform remarkable work, especially in the third world. The United Kingdom has played an honourable role in the development and contribution of the agencies, but there have been difficulties and there have been controversies. I hope that, with the passage of time, these can be resolved and avoided.
As the noble Baroness knows well, Britain was involved—and, I think, understandably involved—when we withdrew from UNESCO in 1984. This is one of the most important UN agencies, and I hope we can rejoin it in the near future. We shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she can let us know how matters stand at the present time, and what are the prospects.
The other point on which I should like the noble Baroness to help us is whether the Government are satisfied that the financial position of the agencies generally is sound. We are most concerned of course with the World Health Organisation, with the Food and Agriculture Organisation and with UNESCO itself. Furthermore, we are concerned that the heads of all the agencies should be seen to be persons of ability, experience and integrity. I know that a number of our colleagues who are expert in this field wish to deal with the agencies and their problems.
But our chief concern today must be the ability of the United Nations Organisation to implement the first two articles of the Charter which begin with the words,
"To maintain international peace and security".
Many of us breathed a sigh of relief when the cold war came to an end. We relaxed for a moment and said, "Well, now we can build the peace. We now have the opportunity to build a new world". But, sadly, we were soon to be disillusioned. The United Nations generally and the Security Council in particular have been busier than ever since then. They have also come in for heavy criticism. I understand however from what I have heard and read that there is growing criticism of the United Nations for its poor internal management and control, its bureaucracy and its role in certain world events, that is peacekeeping.
It is argued that the United Nations is insufficiently robust and of diminishing relevance in a dangerous and divided world. We must not forget however that peacekeeping, as we know, has had a number of outstanding successes. Between 1948 and 1966 the United Nations set up 10 peacekeeping bodies which were broadly constructive and successful. As the House
1228
will recall, further effective operations in the Middle East and in Cyprus followed. There has been bickering and argument about some peacekeeping forces from time to time, but if they had not been established by the United Nations during the past 50 years, wars with all their unpredictable consequences could have broken out in many parts of the world.
The 16 active peacekeeping forces in operation at this moment, as we debate this afternoon, create the atmosphere which enables and impels people to think again and which saves millions of people from becoming casualties of war. That is an immense contribution. There are other notable achievements which I can only refer to briefly, for example, the United Nations record on decolonisation, on the protection of human rights, on the safeguarding of the environment, emergency relief, education and crucial operations such as the negotiation of ceasefires. All these have been admirable. We must pay a warm tribute to the officials of the UN who are engaged on these critical tasks.
I regret that my noble friend Lord Ennals who intended to speak in this debate is unable to be with us because he is unwell and is in hospital. I hope that he will recover soon and be with us again. There are others here who have made great contributions. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is able to be here this afternoon because he made a notable contribution to the formation of the UN at the very start.
I fear I must now turn to a less encouraging scene; namely, the world security problems and their far-reaching implications. These have changed fundamentally since the cold war ended. Is it not the sad case that some nation states are now disintegrating from within; that the extremes of rich and poor in the world are greater than ever before? The symbol of this tragic reality is the rise in the number of conflicts and in the costs of peacekeeping. I shall give the House some figures. From 1988 to 1994 UN involvement rose from 11 to 28 operations, and the number of personnel engaged from 10,000 to 73,000 with the budget rising from 230 million dollars to 3.5 billion dollars—all this after the end of the cold war. These are some of the disappointing and threatening developments we have to consider in this debate.
We know that the United Nations was founded on the principle of collective security; namely, that the member nations decided to join together and agreed to defend the independence and freedom of nation states. This was a fundamental pillar of the United Nations. But does not the noble Baroness agree that the new world order which is developing after the cold war calls for a new definition of security? I suggest that this would encompass human rights, good governance, economic development and civil security as well as economic security.
At the end of the day security is an issue of justice: justice for the smallest, poorest and most desperate in countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Somalia (which was mentioned in the exchange at Question Time) and many other countries. The real danger is that those concepts, so vital to the future of the world, may remain as platitudes disregarded by the great powers.
The question is whether the United Nations and the international community can do anything to halt these dangerous and destabilising trends. Like other noble Lords, I have read in several articles that the United Nations is at present in crisis. One expert argued that when the main powers are authorised and mobilised by the UN to take action within their direct security interests, such as happened in Haiti and Kuwait, then the United Nations is effective. But is this not a matter of national self-interest? People inside and outside the UN complain that they want more than that to be done. I wonder what view the noble Baroness takes on that attitude.
It is on that central question of preserving security that difficulties arise. Ideally, the UN should provide leadership to resolve the problems in some of the countries I mentioned. Bosnia has shown how immensely complex and intractable some situations can be. But the influence, power and financial resources of the main powers ensure that their influence and judgment control the Security Council, whether or not their judgment is the right one. In the meantime, we must continue to hope that that judgment is the right one. We must also bear in mind that the United Nations is still in its infancy and countries have not yet learnt to subordinate their independence of action to the general welfare of mankind as a whole. Is it perhaps not true that only when people begin to think of themselves as citizens of the world will the United Nations begin to make quicker progress?
We have a duty to consider these problems and seek solutions. However, we must not get too depressed. Some important progress has been made, especially in non-political matters. We must remember with gratitude that genuine hardship and need have been tackled by the United Nations on a global scale far more effectively than ever before.
I am glad to think that over the past 50 years Britain has played her part in that development. So indeed have other countries, not least the United States, whose general contribution I have always admired. The United States is a great nation with a great past and, I believe, a promising future (although I wish that they would make as much fuss of St. David as they do of St. Patrick). I also read with concern this week that the Republican party plans to reduce US contributions to the United Nations. I cannot confirm that but that would be a retrograde step which could have very serious results.
As we proceed to the next century, it is crucial that the United States should be there in the Security Council, and that Russia and China should also be there. Getting them to work together, to understand each other better and to trust each other is essential.
In this debate we inevitably ask whether there is a prospect of a secure and happy future for our grandchildren and for children the world over. The answer is yes, if the United Nations remains active and
1230
effective, if the United Nations works under the principles of its Charter—whose words lie at the heart of our hopes and aims—namely:
"We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom".
Those are great objectives worth working for. I believe that this Parliament, and both Houses, have a record which should place us at the very front of the efforts which must be made in the next few years.
As I said, it is a privilege to place these facts before the House and to press the Government to support those objectives in every possible way. We have our Select Committee which deals with the European Union and its policies. I believe that it is time we considered setting up a Select Committee to look at the work of the United Nations. If we can put our shoulder to the wheel, we can help to create a better world. I believe that to be our duty. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to follow the noble Lord in this debate. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in thanking him for having chosen this subject today and for the impressive style in which he set our proceedings under way. There was very little in his speech that I would not wish to endorse. I add my particular commendation to his enthusiasm for St. David in preference to St. Patrick.
I should perhaps disclose a special reason for my pleasure in being able to take part in this debate. I was privileged not long ago to be elected president of the committee established to mark this 50th anniversary year of the United Nations.
The noble Lord was right to pose almost at the outset of his speech the question of how far the organisation has succeeded. My experience as president of that committee has enabled me to observe, and indeed experience at close quarters, the remarkable polarisation of opinion about the United Nations, in both directions, and about internationalism generally. For example, in the economic field respect for and expectations of the economic partnership of the GATT seems to grow stronger day by day, even to the extent that it has now been reborn with a new name (the World Trade Organisation) and even, apparently, with luck a new director-general in the person of Renato Ruggiero. We must keep our fingers crossed that that post will at last be filled.
Yet at the same time the United Nations itself may have been, and in the eyes of some people has been, almost daily discredited, however unjustly, by the experience in Yugoslavia. However, even the harshest critics generally, and very rightly, are willing to qualify the severity of their judgment. They are ready, as was the noble Lord, to give due praise to the work done, for example, by UNICEF and to speak well of the work

1231
done by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Praise in those fields is often linked with respect and admiration for the leadership and enthusiasm of my right honourable and noble friend Lady Chalker. The whole House endorses that sentiment.
There is just one field in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, my noble friend has not yet been able —or perhaps I should say enabled—to live up to expectations; that is, the field of UNESCO. It was, of course, during my time as Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government decided to withdraw support from that organisation; and rightly so. But it was never intended to be a permanent step. The objective was to secure specific and essential changes in the management of that organisation. There was a clear implication that if those changes were achieved, our membership would be renewed. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was quite right to ask about the position today. I return to the same question, and quote, if I may, a letter that I wrote to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 12th October 1993. I wrote:
"The merits of the case have already been substantially conceded by Her Majesty's Government and the only problem is to find the money … Certainly, I think it would be difficult to resist re-entry to U.N.E.S.C.O. for longer than two years from now. The United Nations organisation celebrates in Golden Jubilee in 1995 and U.N.E.S.C.O. would surely be an unstoppable bidder by then?".
I received a reply from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 9th November 1993, as follows:
"You correctly characterise our position. We recognise and welcome the progress U.N.E.S.C.O. has made since 1985. But we have to identify where the money is coming from before we can take a decision to re-join".
Therefore I ask with due diffidence: why have we not yet re-joined? I hesitate to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are still unable, 18 months later, to find the £11 million or so necessary. I hesitate to recall that when I was making my first budget I learnt to my astonishment that the estimated size of the PSBR was rounded to the nearest £¼ billion. I am still more reluctant to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to take the necessary decision.
With some confidence I hope that we may look for a more positive background to the 50th anniversary ceremony of the United Nations over which Her Majesty is due to preside in Westminster Hall on 26th June of this year. Indeed, I hope that we may look forward to a more encouraging announcement from my noble friend later today. If not, she must be looking to make the announcement on an even more dramatic forthcoming occasion.
The agenda for today's debate is much wider than that. It embraces those all too many areas of international relations where the rule of force has been and still is the strongest rule. Those are the areas in which 10 years ago the world was described by the then Secretary-General, Perez de Cuellar, as "perilously near to anarchy". He rightly laid blame then for the absence of even a minimum working relationship between the five permanent members of the Security Council on the
1232
attitude of the Soviet Union. He rightly said that a working partnership between those five was "a sine qua non of the Council's effectiveness".
That state of affairs was dramatically transformed by the historic shift in Soviet foreign policy for which Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze were responsible. As Shevardnadze said,
"No longer should Soviet foreign policy be seen as a continuation of class warfare by other means".
That decision to return to a policy of co-operation within the United Nations system has been of profound importance to the international community. It offered, virtually for the first time since 1945, the prospect of actually making the United Nations work. Our own country is entitled to take at least some credit for that. It was our own ambassador in New York, in those days Sir John Thomson, who decided to recommence the long-neglected practice of informal meetings of the ambassadors of the Permanent Five. They had not met in that way for years. However, it was as a result of that British initiative that in 1987 I had the immensely exciting privilege of attending the first meeting for many years of the five Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Of course, the structure of the Security Council may be coming up for change. But that change should never involve the departure of the United Kingdom from permanent membership of that organisation.
I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in paying tribute, first to Sir John Thomson, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who also played a part, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and to all those others, before as well as after 1987, who faced the challenging task of representing this country in New York.
In the seven years since 1987, expectations about the role of the UN and judgments about its success have swung from one extreme to the other and back. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn said, it is important to place that record in a proper perspective. Yes, there has been a great wave of extraordinary success in recent years—not all due to the United Nations. But the United Nations certainly can take some credit, for example, for the end of the prolonged Iran-Iraq War, the success of the operation to liberate Kuwait, the orderly independence of Namibia, and the reasonably orderly elections in Mozambique, perhaps Angola, and even Cambodia. For a time expectations soared. So, too, did the scale of the endeavour. In the first 40 years of its existence, the United Nations established some 15 operations. In the past six years it has set up 17 more.
Of course, there have been huge disappointments as well. There have been continuing unresolved tragedies. Somalia stands out among the many examples that the noble Lord gave of nations disintegrating, and creating their own chaos. So, too, does Bosnia. But we should remind ourselves that suffering there and elsewhere would have been infinitely worse had it not been for the presence of the United Nations. Britain, British volunteers and perhaps above all British Armed Forces, have played and are playing a prominent and effective role; and they deserve our warmest praise.

1233
I close by offering a couple of modest suggestions for the future of the organisation. First, and perhaps most importantly, we should by no means give up our endeavours in this field. On the contrary, we need to do all that we can to extend the rule-based system—"the community of civilised states". Even on the darkest days we should not despair of the organisation, still less denounce it or seek to lay blame for all its shortcomings upon the shoulders of those who strive to serve it.
Neither the Secretary-General nor the organisation itself has any more authority or strength than we, the member states, are willing to provide for them. Their strength, and much of their wisdom, is the strength that they are able to borrow from us. That is why they deserve our continuing commitment and support.
My second suggestion is that we should pay more attention to the question, "What next?" Every intervention that involves the use of force, whether through peace keeping or a more large scale military action, is in a sense an admission of failure, a recognition that already there has been a breakdown in the world order.
It is what happened that leads to fighting that we need to understand, and still better to anticipate. Intelligently developed, that can lead to the preventive deployment of United Nation troops before conflict has actually begun. That idea was applied, for example, with some success to deploying UN forces in Macedonia. For the United Nations, above all, the general proposition must be that prevention of conflict is better than cure. That is the right and cost-effective approach.
And so to my last and more cautious thought. We live in times when the basic principles of the United Nations are being judged by the instinctive human reaction to the "CNN dimension" of international diplomacy—the call for an instant response. It is clear that in this instant world-wide setting we shall go on being presented with an infinity of opportunities for the law to be mobilised; for the United Nations to be mobilized in support of law. However disappointing it may be to say so, we need to keep that ambition in reasonable check. Theoretically at least, the law, and indeed the United Nations itself, can be deployed to face almost every hazard. The real question should be: can it do so in practice in this or that specific case? Do we have the resources to apply legal remedies to what is actually happening? Do we have the organisation to deploy them in the right way? Do we have the right structure for commanding them? Can we define the achievable limits of the mission that we entrust to our representatives?
For me the most important thing is the need to take great care, while seeking to extend the rule of law, not to test that rule to destruction. We must harness and cherish that precious legal resource rather than risk destroying it all together.
I conclude with a quotation from Sir Michael Howard in a Ditchley lecture some 18 months ago, which perhaps sounds harsh but perhaps is worth remembering:
"We should approach world problems not with the universalism of the lawyer but with the pragmatic triage of the surgeon on the battlefield, who divides his patients into those who do not need help, those he cannot help, and those he can and must help".
1234
It is a difficult thought, and as my noble friend Lady Chalker knows better than most people in this House,
"The road does indeed wind upwards to the very end".
But we need to continue with our feet firmly on that road.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his characteristically eloquent introduction to this important debate. I am conscious that the appropriate person to make the speech from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is my noble friend Lord Gladwyn, who is sitting beside me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for reminding us that my noble friend was one of the drafters of the United Nations Charter at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco. In fact, he was the Secretary of the first General Assembly of the United Nations which met in the Central Hall here in London. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn was for a short time the first acting Secretary-General of the United Nations.
My noble friend no longer feels able to deliver a speech in your Lordships' House—a great deprivation for it. However, having had the benefit of his wise counsel in preparing my speech, I can assure your Lordships that whatever his physical frailties, with advancing years, his mind is as creative and forward-looking as it ever was in seeking constructive solutions to the challenges facing the United Nations.
It is easy to feel depressed and disappointed at times about the United Nations. The arrival in its early years of the Cold War prevented it from living up to the high hopes of its founding fathers. The ending of the Cold War produced fresh hopes of a new chapter, but the melting of the ice of the Cold War has revealed a world with, in some ways, not less but more tension in more places around the world. Yet the United Nations has come through 50 years of international strife and is still by far the best hope for international peace and for tackling global poverty. At the very least, it can echo the French aristocrat who, when asked what he did in the French Revolution, said: "I survived". Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned, the United Nations has not only survived, but we are inclined too easily to forget the scale of the work it continues to do in face of the dangers and cruelties of the contemporary world. At the last count, the thin blue lines of the blue berets were peacekeeping in 17 countries with 71,000 peacekeepers.
Even if the ending of the Cold War has not produced a new world order, it has, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us from his experience as Foreign Secretary, produced some substantial dividends. If the superpowers had still been dominating and sterilising the United Nations, I doubt whether the Iraq aggression against Kuwait would ever have been halted; the civil war in Ethiopia would still be going on; Namibia would not be independent; and the Arab-Israel peace process would probably never have got off the ground. However, there are glaring deficiencies in the way

1235
member governments support the United Nations. There is so much to do if the United Nations is to be made properly effective during its second 50 years.
The international community has changed out of all recognition during the 50 years since the UN was founded, and the world is still changing. With the ending of the western European empires and with the dissolution of the Russian empire, the United Nations has become a cumbersome community of 184 states. The original permanent membership of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States no longer reflects the realities of world politics. Germany and Japan have an equal claim to be Permanent Members of the United Nations. What about the populous new nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America?
The composition of the Security Council today is a historical anachronism. The question which ought to be faced in this fiftieth anniversary year is whether it can be reformed. It is difficult to be optimistic about getting agreement for change, but an anniversary of this kind is an opportunity to make the effort to try to review the Charter. I wonder whether it would be worth while Her Majesty's Government considering an initiative, with Britain and France giving a lead in offering to merge their permanent seats in a European Union seat. Her Majesty's Government took a notable lead, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred, in calling a Security Council summit in 1992. That led to further consideration by the General Assembly of the United Nations of the possible reform of the Security Council. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has to say on that aspect of our approach to United Nations matters.
Then there is the question of the reform of United Nations finance. I immediately join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in their suggestion that the time has now come for Britain to consider rejoining UNESCO.
On the wider question of finances, one of our great ambassadors, Sir Anthony Parsons, wrote a book which was recently published in which he deals robustly with complaints about the cost of the UN. A £3 billion annual peacekeeping budget may be two or three times what it was in the past, but it is still less than 10 per cent. of the British national defence budget and it is about the same as the Anglo-American aid budget to Israel. It is not the size of the budget that is the problem; it is the distribution, with the Americans grumbling understandably about their 30 per cent. contribution to it. The European Union countries provide another 30 per cent., and that leaves 170 member states to meet only 25 per cent. of the budget. Some of the states have the highest per capita income in the world —for example, the great oil-producing Arab states. What better way would there be to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations than a fairer funding of the organisation?
Then the question arises of more effective peacekeeping arrangements. The United Nations needs better backing from member states who have so far rejected the Secretary-General's case for earmarked forces to be on call. I noticed a cri de Coeur the other day when he pointed out in the case of Rwanda and
1236
Burundi that there has simply not been an adequate response from member governments to the terrible problems there of combined civil war and human suffering.
An alternative proposal would be the creation of a special standing force, internationally recruited from volunteers, which could be deployed at short notice in roles more akin to police action than to military action. There will be increasing demands for that kind of deterrent preventive capability. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was absolutely right to draw attention to that point. One of the striking features of our troubled world is that these days the United Nations rarely has to deal with classic examples of international aggression across recognised national frontiers, as in the case of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. It has to deal much more with civil war situations, as in the former Yugoslavia. One of the problems is that the dissolution of the Russian empire is taking place in a great land-based empire. The problems of United Nations constructive intervention there are very limited indeed.
Finally, it is vital to remember that the vast majority of the United Nations' efforts lie not in the Security Council and peacekeeping, but in waging war against the hunger and poverty that divide the human race so dangerously. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn has given me some terrifying statistics from United Nations sources. Some 1.4 billion people now live in absolute poverty. That is 40 per cent. more than 15 years ago. In 1960 the richest one-fifth of the world's population enjoyed 30 times more income than the poorest fifth. By 1989 the richest fifth was receiving 60 times the income of the poorest. Against that grim background, my noble friend Lord Gladwyn supports proposals put forward in a magisterial report by two of the great United Nations officials, Sir Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers.
They believe that the image of the United Nations as an intractably large and reform-defying bureaucracy is greatly exaggerated. They argue strongly for an eventual single centre for the control of all United Nations activities. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, together with the various specialised agencies, should be integrated into the whole United Nations machine under an intergovernmental board. There should be a revival of the post of director-general for development and international economic co-operation, with all the power that was originally intended but was subsequently whittled away.
I realise that these are large reforms—though in this case no revision of the charter would be involved in relation to the kind of organisation that I have described. Neither my noble friend nor I under-estimate the resistance to them or the difficulty of making progress. But progress in this direction is needed if the United Nations is to rise to the challenge of increasing populations and poverty in the third world.

1237
This is the kind of grand design that ought to be debated as appropriate to the 50th anniversary of an organisation on which our hopes hang to master what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has called, in one of his vivid phrases, the suicidal tendencies of the human race.
3.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am also deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for initiating this debate. I am honoured that I can take part in it. I am, however, somewhat daunted by Members of this House who have such experience and knowledge in this field, not least the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I am glad to think—though I do not think it is a matter of great pith or moment—that the first Assembly was in the Methodist Central Hall; the first meeting of the Security Council was in Church House, Westminster; and I believe that the members of the World Council of Churches assisted in the drawing up of the United Nations Charter and constitution.
On 7th May this year we shall all rightly fall to giving thanks for the end of the war and recall those dark remembered days of over 50 years ago. It is terribly important also that we should look around us with awareness and look forward with hope. I am reminded of the words in "Salad Days":
"If I let nostalgia blind me and my resolution grows slack,
I'll remind you to remind me we said we'd never look back".
We must, of course, look back. But nostalgia is notoriously bad for resolution. It weakens it. It is essential to look around us at the changed world in which we live.
Looking back, we can see the achievements. They have been mentioned, and I shall not repeat all of them. The United Nations organisation has assisted in the democratisation of several countries. I would mention in particular Mozambique and Namibia, not forgetting South Africa. The UN has negotiated peace, I am told, in as many as 172 conflicts. It has protected refugees and done good work in UNCTAD and in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is vital to making the world marketplace fair for those in the smaller countries with weaker economies. It has codified and addressed human rights. In the 1980s, through its own agencies, it eradicated smallpox and managed to immunise 80 per cent. of the world's children against six killer diseases. Those are great achievements. The organisation has also acted as an early warning system on the state of the planet. All that has been achieved with a staff of less than the number of health service officials in Wales. That is a figure that can be checked.
Looking back, we have to admit that the world community has not done enough to remove the scourge of war, to defend human rights and, above all, to provide for social progress among the third world nations—or what we probably should call the two-thirds world. Reports from Brandt to Brundtland have warned that there cannot be peace for any, nor well-being for any, unless there is peace and well-being for all. We have a common future or we have no future at all. Keith Suter, an Australian academic, has said that the task of the
1238
United Nations organisation is to bring nations together, not to keep them apart, and to move them forward in interdependence.
Perhaps I may ask at this point whether the noble Baroness can say that Her Majesty's Government are in support of debt cancellation in the year 2000 on the jubilee principle—by which every 50 years in Israel of old an effort was made to redress the accumulated imbalance of power and wealth, such as we see in the world today. We see debts incurred by the two-thirds world which those countries will never be able to pay. They spend all their energies trying to service those debts, and the poorest and the most hungry are not helped.
I also suggest that the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations will be a good time to appraise the effectiveness and justice of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Even the best institutions require reassessment from time to time. I not infrequently hear a plea from aid charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid for the reform, even the abolition, of structural adjustment programmes such as those which have damaged Zambia and Zimbabwe and which were the object of criticism at the summit in Copenhagen in March.
To look once more to the future, to the next 50 years of the United Nations organisation, I know that there will be those who argue, with reason, that peace is maintained by defensive alliances and by a shrewd pursuit of the balance of power. That may be so. It is sad that during the years when we were arming ourselves to death and playing beggar-my-neighbour, we were allowing a certain cynicism to grow up towards the United Nations organisation. Snide remarks were made such as, "There are two things wrong with the United Nations organisation: one, it's not united; the other, it's made up of nations". I cannot believe that the abolition of the United Nations would be in the interest of future generations; nor of the smaller nations; nor of the rights of vulnerable minorities; nor of the abject poor about whom we have just heard.
My figures are lower than those previously stated. I shall not quote them. I believe that there are now far more than 800 million people in abject poverty. Surely there must be an international body that provides a link between nations—a table around which nations can gather, and a tribunal where they can plead the cause of justice and peace. It is sad that there has been such cynicism which has caused nations, some of them rich and powerful, not to pay their contribution and their share for the maintenance of the organisation. I agree that the 50th anniversary is an excellent time to appeal to those who are in debt to pay their debts to the United Nations organisation and to support the Secretary General in pressing for payment; perhaps to make the Security Council more representative; and to make the United Nations resolutions more effective.
The Churches themselves are overdue for an assessment of the role of sectarianism, fundamentalism and extremism as the causes of war. I should like to see, certainly in Europe, the Churches ecumenically

1239
addressing the story and the track record of religion in causing a drift into barbarism. I believe that barbarism and religion can have an unhealthy relationship.
Yet, there is another side to that coin. For example, we have to remember that the most ugly regimes of this century—that of National Socialism in Germany and Marxist Communism in Russia—were both based fairly and squarely on atheism. We should nourish, foster and increase the role of religious people as peacemakers.
In 1993 there was the Parliament of the World's Religions. It called for a commitment to a culture of non-violence, for an economic order which was just, for tolerance and for an equal partnership between men and women. I should like to see that Parliament of the World's Religions called once more to address some of the issues of our day. Above all, could not the proactive, peace-making role of the United Nations be strengthened?
I was nine when the Second World War broke out. All through my young years it seemed as though we lurched from one crisis to the next. As the world of medicine has learned the importance of preventive medicine, do we not need a similar preventive foreign policy among the nations to forfend the outbreak of violence and war? It is too late to express concern when the killing has started. We are all so concerned to maintain our own prosperity. We must realise that that would be constantly under threat if the world is destabilised, anarchic and, as I said, drifting into barbarism.
Before I came to your Lordships' House today, I looked at a video of last Monday's "Panorama" programme. It was frightening, showing the degeneration into sectarian, cultic and indeed mindless violence in certain nations, nations which once had high standards and order. Such a degeneration would make Attila the Hun seem a beneficent ruler by comparison. Those are nations where they have failed governments, governments which admit that they can do nothing about the situation because there is a kind of international underclass which has no stake in the world's future and is prepared to be violent. The enemy is not known and the purpose of the war is not known either.
It is in that kind of situation that the United Nations organisation in the next 50 years will have to play its part. There will be refugees roaming the face of the earth and I am told that 80 per cent. of those killed will be civilians. We know in our own land the need to reinvent civil society. We also need to reinvent an international polity, otherwise we shall revert to a new Dark Ages, in which we shall think that God and his angels sleep. I long for energy to be poured not just into peace-keeping or peace enforcement but into peace-making, which Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali advocated in the Agenda for Peace. Can we be assured that more United Nations diplomats can be available and a separate department for peace-making, led by a deputy to the Secretary General, can be formed?
In front of the United Nations organisation building in New York, there is a sculpture given by Russia of a man turning swords into ploughshares. It illustrates the undying hope that people have for peace and well-being.
1240
I strongly support those who advocate a stronger, more effective United Nations organisation for the coming 50 years.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, in his excellent opening speech, and the following distinguished speakers have all declared how pleased we are to see with us the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. As Gladwyn Jebb, he entered the diplomatic service way back in 1924 and for the next decades he held increasingly important posts. He played a most active part in setting up the structure of the United Nations organisation. He was the United Kingdom Permanent Representative until 1954, when he was appointed our Ambassador to France. We are truly honoured to have the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with us today for such an appropriate debate.
In a far more modest way I can claim a minuscule place in history which is unlikely to be shared by more than a few Members of your Lordships' House. On Thursday, 10th January, 1946, I attended the first ever meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations organisation. The United Nations Charter had, of course, been signed in San Francisco in June and was ratified in October. But it was indicative of the leading position held by Great Britain—50 years ago—that, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, the first great General Assembly with a number of delegates from all the member states was held here in London.
Members of the Preparatory Commission had come to London in November to supervise arrangements. They decided that the Assembly should take place in Central Hall, Westminster where, as we know, great meetings are still held from time to time. Church House agreed to assist with rooms for staff and committees. The Times reported—it will not surprise us—that mainly because of the difficulty of heating our Westminster Hall, the project to use this historic building, the Palace of Westminster, had been abandoned.
At that time Ernest Bevin was our Foreign Secretary. He led the British delegation. I was then a modest journalist in the Press Gallery in the House of Commons. They were sitting in this House as the Commons building had been blitzed in the war. I made it my business to obtain a press pass for what I knew would be a great historic gathering in the Central Hall.
It was encouraging to learn that the foreign and Commonwealth delegates would receive emergency ration cards and that Colonel Condrington, of the Foreign Office, had received a fairly good response to the appeal to the public to take some of the visitors, including their staff, into their homes, owing to the difficulty of finding unblitzed hotel rooms in London. The General Post Office decided to stamp all letters posted in London during the period of the Assembly with a specially designed United Nations cancellation mark, and so on. Everyone did their best. Just in time, the national flags of the 51 UN members arrived from San Francisco and people hurried to hang them up outside Central Hall.

1241
I am afraid that I cannot claim to have enjoyed the royal hospitality. On the night before the opening ceremony at Central Hall nearly 100 senior delegates, including many of the leading statesmen of the world, were received at St. James's Palace by His Majesty King George VI. He wore his service uniform of Admiral of the Fleet. The next evening, to maintain the position of Parliament, Ernest Bevin hosted a large reception in our Royal Gallery.
At the royal dinner his Majesty's immediate neighbours were Dr. Zuleta Angel, chairman of the United Nations Preparatory Commission and M. Spaak, Foreign Minister of Belgium, who, the next day, was confirmed as President of the new General Assembly. Next to them came Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, and Lord Jowitt, the Lord Chancellor, together with most members of the Cabinet. The Opposition senior members were headed by Mr. Anthony Eden and Mr. R.A. Butler. Mr. Churchill was not present. He had decided to make his way, with his wife, to Florida saying, very truly, "I think I have earned a holiday". Indeed he had.
The King was clearly much moved by the occasion. He felt that the eyes of all humanity were on the United Nations Assembly. Comprehension, patience and tolerance, one with another, were the qualities most needed. He concluded the main speech of the evening with these words:
"It is for you to lay the foundations of a new world, where such a conflict as that which lately brought our world to the verge of annihilation must never be repeated; where men and women can find opportunity to realise to the full the good which lies in each of them. It is a noble work and you have, in the Charter of the United Nations, a noble instrument".
After 50 years, how successful can we claim to have been? How much more have we still to do?
4.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the way in which he introduced this subject today for our debate. In this 50th anniversary year for me the special United Nations date is 26th June—the date of the signing of the Charter. I am glad that that is to be commemorated in a ceremony in Westminster Hall, that information being provided in the Answer to a Question of mine two months ago.
The House will expect to be reminded of significant events of half a century ago and to hear some nostalgic references. We have just heard some extremely interesting ones from the noble Baroness, Lady White, of the First Assembly in London. I believe that we should also go further back than 1945. The first use of the expression "United Nations" was half-way through World War II. The declaration of the United Nations was on 1st January 1942, soon after the United States came into the war after the attack on Pearl Harbour. That declaration was signed by 26 nations and contained their aims in and after the war against Hitler and the leaders of Japan.
For a moment I pose a question of particular interest to my age group. What was happening today—22nd March 1945—exactly 50 years ago? It was a significant date for Britain and for our troops in North West
1242
Europe. It was D-day minus 2 for the Rhine; that is, two days before D-day for the assault crossing and air-borne landings across the River Rhine. The Scottish Division in which I was serving was one of the two divisions to attack in assault boats at 2 a.m. on 24th March. It is as well to remember that exactly 50 years ago the war was by no means over in Europe, still less in South-East Asia and the Far East.
After the commemorations in Normandy last June and with the prospect of VE day in May before us, younger generations may overlook the hard fighting, costly in casualties, in the months between. For example, 50 years ago last month our British troops had been engaged in the fierce battles to break through the Siegfried Line and go through the Reichswald Forest. The San Francisco Conference convened at the end of April, just before the ceasefire in Europe. It led to agreement on membership of the United Nations and on the text of the Charter.
It is worth noting that two Soviet Republics were made separate members—the Ukraine and Byelorussia as it was, Belarus as it is now—so that a compromise gave three votes to the Soviet Union. At that time a crucial part of the Charter was the veto. The five major powers from the Security Council could exercise it and prevent action by the United Nations. It was of course over-used by the Soviet Union and fell into some disrepute. But its origin was sensible. The main purpose of the United Nations was to prevent another world war. If one or more of the great powers were strongly opposed to action involving armed force, dangerous conflicts could be started by the decisions of the United Nations in the Security Council; hence the veto. It was designed to stop action at an early stage that might make matters worse and possibly lead to the world war which it was the UN's object to avoid.
The organisation started with 51 members, less than one-third of the membership of today. Other noble Lords have worked at the United Nations during the past 50 years. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as Ambassador, had a distinguished period of service and is to reply this evening. My interest and participation in the debate arise from having been a junior diplomatist in the United Kingdom mission for three years. I went to New York in 1948 when the United Nations was only three years old—in its very early days.
While many disputes and situations have been before the United Nations, there have been two which severely tested the basic system and resulted in United Nations forces being sent to subdue an aggressor. The first was Korea and the second was Kuwait and the Gulf War. As regards Korea, I was at the emergency meeting of the Security Council at Lake Success on the Sunday morning in June 1950, the day after North Korea attacked the South. There were only four of us in the British delegation and I am the only one who still survives. Our ambassador was not there, Sir Alexander Cadogan, who had just retired. My noble kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, took over several days later and handled brilliantly the later stages of the Korean crisis. I am glad that he is present today. As other noble

1243
Lords have said, he was the Acting Secretary General of the organisation before the first Secretary General, Mr. Trigve Lie, was appointed.
The war in Korea was tough and difficult. However, the fact that the United Nations forces prevailed and that the aggressor was forced to give up everything that had nefariously been acquired, probably acted as a powerful deterrent in later years against similar temptations to invade a neighbour's territory. The aggression of Saddam Hussein against Kuwait and the United Nations successful reaction through the coalition force are fresh in our memories. Again, the Security Council system was successful in restoring the territorial situation. The new factor, which was very welcome, was that Russia—now the successor to the Soviet Union as a permanent member—was assisting the United Nations action; the Cold War had indeed ended.
When the Charter was being negotiated, a clause on which most if not all countries insisted was one prohibiting the United Nations from interfering in the domestic affairs of any nation—not just members but any nation. That became Article 2.7 of the Charter. In its early days that clause assumed great importance among the members. It has, however, made it difficult for the United Nations to mediate or even to introduce humanitarian aid in civil wars. In addition, there are situations which have arisen over the years where international action was deemed to be necessary or helpful but world peace was not being threatened. A punitive force to deal with aggression was not needed, but lightly armed and equipped neutral buffer forces—sometimes only observers—were needed.
The Charter did not visualise the need for peace-keeping forces or make provision for them. The United Nations nonetheless has decided to introduce that concept. Now, peace-keeping forces are the most widely used troops acting for the United Nations in various parts of the world. Arrangements additional to the Charter have thus been put into effect with general agreement. I have to add that operating these peace-keeping forces has been a delicate and difficult business both for the military commanders and for the directing offices of the United Nations and individual governments.
What of the future in the next 50 years of the United Nations? Although the Cold War has ended, the United Nations must remain ready to deal with wild men in charge of nation states. The states may be small but if they are trying to obtain nuclear weapons they could become very dangerous. The United Nations also has to be alert to detect and forestall international terrorism. Contingency planning is needed all the time in New York for quick responses when military forces or units are needed for various occasions.
The question is asked whether there should be changes to the structure or in the Charter to reflect the comparative influence of members compared with 1945 when Germany and Japan were not members and nor were other countries now influential in the world. One small change was agreed in 1965 to increase the number in the Security Council to 15. There are problems in upsetting a system which is now working and well
1244
understood. Anomalies do exist and they may become more apparent. But I suggest that any revision will have to be undertaken with the utmost care and with very full consultation.
The United Nations has been successful, I submit, in its main, original object of preventing world war, but it has not done so exactly in the way which was foreseen and intended in 1945.
4.23 p.m.
Lord ShepherdLords, it is right and proper that we should be celebrating next month the end of the war in Europe and next year, in a similar way, the end of the war in Asia. It is of equal importance that we should celebrate throughout the country and throughout the world, in a perhaps more vigorous and enthusiastic way than we are doing today, the creation and formation of the United Nations.
Fifty years ago some 51 nations signed a Charter. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn read it out. The words stand the test of time and still cause us to feel emotion. Those of my age and my experience, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, ask, "Where were we on that day?" High aspirations and high hopes remain. We have not yet prevented war. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to Korea, and there was also the conflict with Iraq. Those were dealt with by the United Nations but mainly, I suggest, through the leadership of the United States.
My noble friend referred to the League of Nations. It collapsed over a period of time. It withered more than collapsed. I suspect that its death was inevitable because of the failure of the United States Congress to support it, although its creation had been inspired by an American president. Without the United States, the League of Nations could not play any effective role for peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others are right about the role of the United Nations in securing peace because the world, by and large, has lived in peace and with increasing security. However, the cockpit of Europe perhaps owes more to the creation of NATO for, as some of us used to call it, collective security. NATO perhaps more than anything has established a peaceful arrangement within Europe. NATO could not have been created or developed, nor could it have succeeded, but for the support and more importantly the participation of the United Nations. My hope is that whatever may be going on there the United States will remain a solid member of NATO. If the military forces of Europe continue to be held together, as they now are, the possibilities of another cockpit are fewer.
I stress the role of the United States because so much has been dependent upon strong leadership. However, the United States has done other things. I spoke of NATO a few moments ago. Perhaps the most imaginative act of the United States was the Marshall Plan which allowed Europe to form itself again out of the devastation of war. I stress the role of the United States deliberately because I sense a wind of change—not Macmillan's one of hope and confidence in Africa but one which bodes danger and ill not only for the

1245
world but for the United States itself. Isolationism has never been very far from the heart of the United States. It was rejected under Roosevelt and successive presidents. The Soviet Union collapsed because of the economic problems that arose as a consequence of the Cold War. In the same way the United States has carried a very major burden of defence at a high cost in terms of the many things, perhaps social, which it might otherwise have done.
I say a wind of change but I hope that it is only a breath. I have the feeling that there is developing nationalism throughout the world. I say to my noble friends in all parts of the House that when I hear the phrase "national interest" and the declaration that "national interest will govern what we do or say", I begin to wonder how close we are reaching towards the form of nationalism that pertained in the 1930s. I understand what is often meant by national interest; that is, our people. But we have to continue to recognise a responsibility and duty well beyond our own particular interests.
The United Nations has been more than successful in the field through its agencies such as the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and the IMF. Perhaps more than any, the IMF has played a major part in establishing the stability of currencies on which world trade depends. World trade is the only way for poor countries eventually to come out of poverty and squalor.
I see the 50th anniversary as an opportunity to go further than simply re-dedicate ourselves to the concept of the United Nations. There should be something more than a function in Westminster Hall. All the great and powerful will be there, no doubt. But when one talks to one's children or grandchildren it is frightening to realise their lack of knowledge of what was the cause of the last war and what led to the creation of the United Nations. I wonder whether it is not too late to see whether, through the national curriculum—perhaps in their history lessons—schools can be encouraged to tell their children, perhaps in a wider field, of the importance to us and to them of the United Nations.
Lord Howe of AberavonMy Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He may like to know that the United Nations Association is organising widely throughout the country a series of mock United Nations General Assemblies, the conclusion of which will take the form of an assembly in Central Hall, Westminster, where it is hoped that the Secretary General will speak. So children will be brought into participation nationwide in the important anniversary celebrations.
Lord ShepherdMy Lords, that is indeed great news. It fills a particular gap which some of us, I suspect, of my age, are becoming more conscious of with the passing of the years.
I come back to the point, made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and to which I referred earlier, of the United States being tired of carrying the burden. We really should be looking at ways and means by which we of the European Union, not necessarily national governments, try to relieve the United States of some of that burden. Perhaps that would have an influence on the general public perception of the United Nations.
1246
I believe that after 50 years the structures of the United Nations require some consideration and perhaps change. That will require great determination and leadership. I believe that it would be of great benefit to the member states if one were able to say that we are looking at it not only internally but through national governments. We could develop a greater understanding within our own country, especially among youngsters. So little is said about the United Nations other than in snide and depreciatory terms. I suspect that not enough is done—and that is the value of today's debate—to draw the attention of the House and the country to the remarkable successes of the United Nations. There have been mistakes, but I suspect that overall the United Nations has achieved something well beyond what the founding fathers expected.
My noble friend has done a great service to the House and, I hope, to Parliament by expounding this universal feeling within the House of the importance of the United Nations and the great necessity that we should sustain and seek ways to invigorate it. I thank my noble friend.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, at this stage of the debate a great deal of ground has been covered. I shall try not to go over what has already been said. I can therefore be very brief. I believe that I will be a good deal more pessimistic than speakers who have already held the Floor. It is indeed an appropriate time to consider the long-term fate of the United Nations organisation, not because it is the 50th anniversary, but because its future in its present form is, in my opinion, clearly at stake. There is in this country and in others a widespread and justifiable dissatisfaction about its failure to achieve its intended purpose and its ineffectiveness in present international situations. It is generally agreed that it is in financial difficulty. That is not the fault of the organisation, but of the members. It is over-staffed and engaged expensively in many superfluous activities. Of course, it is not without achievements, but it is failing in its main purposes.
First, it is not improbable—and indeed likely—that the Serbians will win the Bosnian war despite their appalling cruelty, treachery and deceit. The impact of such an event will appall world opinion and greatly discredit the United Nations itself. Previously, advantage was not fully taken of the victory in the Gulf War and a great opportunity was missed. Since then the United Nations has suffered a humiliating collapse in Somalia and in Africa—in Rwanda, Angola and elsewhere—and in parts of the Far East. Such progress that has been made in the Middle East has been made largely at the initiative of others outside the machinery of the United Nations.
Before suggesting a way to strengthen the United Nations, I believe it is reasonable to put on record the performance of the United Kingdom in the organisation itself. On the whole, I believe that our own country has put up a good show since the organisation was created. In its formulation we played a major part for which our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, deserves the

1247
greatest credit. Since 1945 our representatives, political and official, have been of very high calibre and in my view performed outstandingly well.
Names have already been mentioned. Their performance in the face of a good deal of hostility has been admirable. One has only to recall the verbal contests of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with the Soviet Vyshinsky in New York. I remember in Washington at that time, when television sets were rare, meeting an American lawyer's wife, who asked whether I had seen "That man Jebb. I rang up my husband at the office and told him to drop everything and come home to see how the Russians should be dealt with".
Another name which has not been mentioned is that of Lord Caradon who carried his letter of resignation in his pocket all the time, but never used it. He played a very important part. Other performers were Sir Patrick Dean, Sir Anthony Parsons and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is here with us this afternoon. In recent months on the television we have been able to see the admirable performance by Sir David Hanney, our representative on the Security Council.
I do not believe that the UN is capable of reforming itself. Its past performance needs reviewing, and problems of the future need anticipating. What do I think needs to be done? Could not a modest sized, but highly talented, commission—international and independent—be set up? It could, in a way, reflect the system that was used when the Marshall Plan was being worked out after the war. The purpose of such a commission would be to think again, in the light of the world of today, and to plan how best to function. Of course, the members would not agree about everything, and could not run the organisation, but in the course of its debates new ideas could be considered and some at least be adopted.
The European Union could be represented on such a commission, and thus find an outlet for its common foreign and defence policy. In any case, the UK could bring an experience of more than 50 years to the discussions. I believe that the idea of such a commission has already begun to be thought out by some people. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that suggestion in replying to the debate.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on having made the debate possible. It is not just significant that the debate is being supported so strongly, but what became clear during his speech is that he retains undiminished his commitment, his vision and his leadership. I also support what he said in his introduction: it is very sad that my noble friend Lord Ennals cannot be with us today because of ill health. I cannot think of anyone who has devoted his life more tirelessly to the issues which concern us than has my noble friend.
At the outset I must declare an interest. Much of my professional life has been, and remains, with NGOs whose activities are directly and indirectly relevant to
1248
the debate. I am privileged to be a member of the Commission on Global Government whose report will, we hope, be a useful contribution to the wider debate surrounding the 50th anniversary. It is a report upon which I shall obviously draw in my remarks.
The first reality of existence, let alone politics, is total, global interdependence. That is true of finance, commerce, trade, information technology, the environment, the airways, shipping lines, fishing, health, military security, the arms trade, international terrorism, its potential brought home horrifically in Japan this week, fundamentalism, migration, and, indeed, the media. The list is overwhelming. It is impossible to look to our own well-being and that of our children and grandchildren within national boundaries alone.
It is not a matter of whether or not we have global governance, but of what kind of global governance we have. To say that is not to envisage some authoritarian, centralised world government; not at all. A complex matrix is obviously what will be required, and in many ways that is precisely what the UN system has become. If it did not exist, something very like it would have to be invented.
But were the UN being formed today, with five Permanent Members of the Security Council, it is unlikely that we would be one. That is a highly significant role we have inherited from history. We have to work hard to justify it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has just argued in his penetrating observations, none of us would, I suspect, advocate relinquishing it. We must therefore shoulder the responsibilities for the global stewardship it entails. If we were ever not prepared to do that, if we were ever to become myopically preoccupied with our own little insular concerns, we should do far better to move over and make way for someone else. What we must all remember is that it is very much our United Nations.
Clearly, the UN system is under stress and in need of reinvigoration. Parts of the system have passed their sell-by date and should be laid to rest. By cynical neglect, the Economic and Social Council has long since become an expensive and ineffective bore; the functions of UNCTAD could well be absorbed by the new world trade organisation and by the UNDP. Similarly, UNIDO could be integrated into the UNDP. However, other parts of the system—the good housekeeping utilities as they have been described—the International Postal Union, the World Meteorological Office, IATA, and their like, perform very well an indispensable co-ordinating role, but at the same time other major elements in the system are in urgent need of strengthening.
First, there is security. Recent history has amply demonstrated the challenge. An anthropological mission from another galaxy would find it impossible to give a rational explanation of human behaviour. Still we spend 250 times as much—or more—on arms than we do on peace-keeping; and still we spend only a fraction of what we spend on peacekeeping on conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy. We agonise about how we will find the resources to cope with the next wave of refugees or displaced people, but what do we spend on preventing that next wave?

1249
Surely there is a case for considering within the UN system the establishment of a council for petition; a respected, credible body to hear petitions from threatened minorities or groups; a body which could produce an authoritative report to be directed towards those in a position to take action. That would at least be a step towards positive, as distinct from reactive, policy.
Surely at the same time we need to give far more authority to the Secretary General and the Security Council to gather intelligence; to mount missions—perhaps like the influential Eminent Persons Group which the Commonwealth dispatched to South Africa—and to appoint conciliators. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested, surely we need to look at the case for a volunteer rapid deployment force to move into hot situations before they escalate. And we should also consider the earmarking of standby forces in member states, ready to be mobilised for peace enforcement, peace-keeping, and the protection of humanitarian operations.
All operations must have clear mandates—of late, so badly lacking. They should always be undertaken in the context of a thorough political analysis and clearly defined political objectives. Disastrously, those were conspicuous by their absence in Somalia. It is imperative to put in place a proper chiefs of staff committee with adequate support.
In parallel, disarmament and control of the conventional arms trade—that monster which fuels bloodshed, chaos and genocide—must certainly remain priorities. The extension of the non-proliferation treaty and closely related comprehensive test ban treaty is essential. To deal with conventional arms, the UN arms register is a start, but a far more comprehensive code of conduct for the trade could do much to promote the transparency which is vital. But every bit as vital are funds for industrial and research diversification and substitution. Whole communities—thousands of people—are dependent for their livelihood upon the production of arms.
In Africa alone, if we are serious about conflict prevention, now is the time to be acting firmly on Burundi, and to be concentrating on the action necessary to divert disaster in Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya and Zaire. If we are serious about conflict resolution we should be preoccupied with the ugly and contagious troubles of Liberia and Sierra Leone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, all that raises the issue of sovereignty. I believe that that nettle must be grasped. Where nation states collapse, where rulers with no democratic or popular legitimacy tyrannise their subjects, we cannot pass by on the other side. There is a humanitarian obligation to intervene. To stand cynically by while the innocent are slaughtered before us on our television screens would do incalculable damage to the moral fabric of our own society.
In any case, of late it has not been a matter of whether the international community will intervene but of when. And too often it has been too late and at maximum expense when least can be achieved. Intervention has repeatedly been arbitrary, when media hype, because the cameras were there, became irresistible.
1250
There is a desperate need for consistent criteria and for well-designed methodology for intervention. For those who fear lest the UN has become a subcontractor or, indeed, a figleaf for the will of the powerful—for those who foresee in effect a pax-Americana—the answer is clear. The international community must get its act together to ensure effective international policy-making and action.
As was rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, we must beware of traditional limited concepts of security. For many millions, the security that they seek first is the security of a home, a job, clean water, enough food and good health. Lasting security, as he argued, entails economic, environmental and social stability and justice. It entails the rule of law with universal access and consistent application of that law. It means the force of law and not the law of force. The role of the International Court of Justice must therefore, it seems to me, be enhanced and its writ must be made to run. An international criminal court may well be overdue but it must not become a tool of the mighty alone.
It is easy to favour sustainable development. But sustainable development raises vast issues of access to resources, distribution and equity. That is why the notion of the Trusteeship Council taking responsibility for the global commons should not be dismissed, and why we should be prepared at least to begin examining the feasibility of charging for the use of global resources such as flight lanes, sea lanes, space and fishing areas. That could be one way too, perhaps, of financing essential international services and the UN system.
After a great deal of internal debate, the Commission on Global Governance came down firmly in favour of a high-powered United Nations body that is more representative than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions and more credible in that respect than the UN system as it presently exists. It should deliberate on how macro-economic, social and environmental policy can best be related to the market system. It should not directly run—God forbid—the IMF and the World Bank but provide a forum in which both the bank and the fund would have to give account of themselves and take account of the wider social and security implications of their policies, ranging from the consequences of the debt burden to the human casualties of structural adjustment which too often keep the burden of such adjustment on the poor, as when, for example, increasing fees for education and health are introduced.
We may lament the undeniable inadequacies of the UN, but all over the world there is a growing crisis of confidence in the national and regional political systems of which we in this House are very much a part. Politicians are perceived to be mesmerised by tactics to the exclusion of strategy. The public sense that the big issues pass us by. They look for vision and leadership. As a nation determined to retain our membership of the Security Council, we in the United Kingdom above all must help to provide exactly that vision and leadership.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in rising to contribute to this welcome debate, I wish to turn to a

1251
subject that was touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Judd, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. We must ask ourselves who in this world are the real powers. The past few years have seen the growth of the transnational corporations in size and power. Today, many of them have budgets greater than many sovereign nations and they transcend national and, indeed, regional boundaries. Furthermore, they transcend national and regional control.
Among the causes of that growth have been the revolution in communications technology and the growth of free trade with the consequent diminution of controls on such corporations. Indeed, if one wants to measure the power of the TNCs, one has only to compare the success of the Uruguay Round, leading to a GATT which essentially serves their purposes, with the failure of the efforts to liberalise the transfer of intellectual rights, which would not have served their purposes.
That growth of power, with its tool of the worldwide transfer of capital to any place which may combine certain workers' skills with a lack of protection for wages, workers' rights and environmental protection, is extremely alarming and a menace to the well-being of both rich and poor countries. Nations have lost control or, worse, are suborned into not wanting to exercise it. The only wholehearted opposition to those evils comes from the equally international efforts of various non-governmental organisations, in particular those which fight on behalf of the poor such as Oxfam and CAFOD, many of which have religious motivations.
But those bodies are puny compared with the might of the TNCs. I believe that there is a fair comparison between the present international situation and that which existed in America towards the end of the last century when the industrial barons—including, I regret to say, my ancestors—rode roughshod over the unions.
It is clear that if nations cannot or will not exercise control—and I hasten to say that it is primarily the former: that they cannot—regional and global bodies must step in to do so. Ultimately, only world bodies can be really effective while complete global freedom of capital allows TNCs to shift their funds about to where standards are the lowest. Therefore, there is a most important role for the United Nations to play.
What we need now is United Nations regulation, not so much of nations as of TNCs, above all to allow developing countries to pursue more self-reliant growth strategies in which they reduce their dependence on northern markets where demand is sustained (in so far as it is sustained) by unsustainable consumption patterns. It cannot too often be pointed out that the state of affairs that I have described is entirely incompatible with the sustainable development to which we are all pledged after Rio.
Among the ends that we must attain is the ability and the right of every country to feed itself. That means a situation in which in this country, for example, we do not have to choose between the courses of over-farming and not farming at all, in which we find ourselves.
1252
Although there are some existing organs of the UN which can be employed in those tasks—and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, touched on the issue—it is possible that a new organ is needed especially for this purpose. But we could start with the World Trade Organisation as the UN's special agency, incorporating the International Labour Organisation, to enforce minimum standards such as the rights of trade unions and the prohibition of any form of slave labour.
It could also recognise the rights of governments to protect their environment and to take such steps as are necessary to prevent the exploitation of non-renewable resources. An additional and very important task would be to guarantee the owners of intellectual rights only a fair return for their efforts but otherwise to see that knowledge flow freely for the good of all. Incidentally, that has been an aim of western civilisation ever since the Enlightenment. That involves, among other things, a strict control of patent rights.
When my noble friend Lord Gladwyn was first Acting Secretary of the United Nations, it started on a tricky role as a peace-keeper in a world which had seen two world wars and seemed quite likely to see another. During its history it has had many failures, but it is clear to most of us that it has been been worthwhile. The time has now come for it to take on a new role by seeing to the preservation not just of the peace of the planet but of the planet itself. Only if it is able to help us fulfil the pledges which we all made at Rio will it incidentally be able to help the global revolution which will lead to the adoption of ecological economics and which will, by no means incidentally, also lead the diminution of violence in the world. It has been pointed out several times in the debate that there is a growing amount of violence within nations which stems from great divergence between rich and poor. That violence is so often caused by a power system which worships Mammon rather than those things which are both human and divine.
In that area, the challenge to the United Nations will be vast. The transnational corporations may be far more difficult to control than have been the nations. But the nations themselves can and should be harnessed to help. I pray that our nation and western Europe as a whole will be in the lead.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, so far this has been a really interesting debate. Everything that has been said has been constructive and most of the contributions have sprung from the very best thoughts of those noble Lords who have spoken. It would be strange and terrible if it were otherwise, because if the United Nations does not bring out the best in us and our best thoughts, what will?
Perhaps I may start by dealing with two concrete subjects which touch this nation. The first is our membership of the Security Council. Indeed, it is an historical accident that we are there. We did not get there because we were a nuclear power, but it has been a justification for remaining there: we are one of the five nuclear powers which are also the five veto-holding permanent members. Change must be expected in time. It would be dangerous to resist it. It would be unfair to

1253
the fabric and development of the United Nations to do so. I should be all for our continuing as a permanent member if that could be reconciled in some way with the arrival of the European Union as an institutional permanent member on the Security Council. But it is hard to see how that could be reconciled. No doubt the Germans would have an opinion about it.
Secondly, I wish to speak about UNESCO and the need for us to rejoin. The House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for reading aloud the correspondence he had with the Prime Minister about when that could be achieved. I can tell your Lordships from personal experience that there is absolutely no doubt that the membership and secretariat of UNESCO would be overjoyed to see us back. That is largely for our own sakes, but also because it might herald the return of the United States to where it belongs.
As regards United Nations funding, which has been lightly touched on, it is clear, (is it not?) that no country can be a true member of the United Nations and have the right to exercise the weight even of other members unless it pays on the nail. There has been some mention in the press of an initiative being prepared within the European Union to devise a system of penalties, or some form of disadvantage, for UN members who do not pay on the nail. It has been reported in the press that this country is taking a leading part in that European Union initiative. I should be interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate. That is something that we should be doing.
Many noble Lords have reminisced. What was I doing in the spring of 1945 when the UN was being set up? I was recovering, partly in hospital, from an unpleasant illness brought about by my involvement in what we should now call a manned weapons platform. In short, it was a very small wooden-built motorboat carrying a lot of machine guns that could proceed at 45 knots but could not sink anything. I contracted TB and it took me some time to recover. But that gave me a sense of weapons and what they are, from both ends, which has never left me throughout my life.
In the rest of my speech I wish to talk about one of the great world scourges, horrors, which can be dealt with only by the United Nations; that is, the arms trade. Let us pause for a moment and think about what is a weapon. It is something unique among all the products of human ingenuity. If we consider it physically, it is something which will inflict death on another human being. It has no other purpose, except to cause another to act in accordance with our will in order to avoid being killed. It is morally unique in that it is a physical machine designed to augment the effects of ill will. If we desire to kill somebody, we have our fists and then a knife and so on up to the H-bomb. Much ingenuity and wealth go into the deliberate and considered magnification of the ability of individual evil to inflict itself more and more widely.
If we consider it economically, the situation is more complicated. It is very seldom considered down to its roots. Weapons are unique in that they are useless if they are not used; that is, they do no good if they are not used. They are extremely expensive to maintain and
1254
require vast forces of highly skilled, dedicated and educated people. If they are used, they destroy wealth on an almost unimaginable scale. There is no other product of which that is true. Most of the other things that we make in our industrial society are either neutral—they do neither good nor harm—or they are positively beneficial in that they keep people alive, give them pleasure, or create wealth with which more useful things can be made, and more people can be removed from starvation and disease.
The world is only just at the beginning of the task of understanding the national arms trade. It has such infinite ramifications for ill. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example which is happening now but which is not discussed very much. Our Government are proud to have achieved second place in the world after the United States as an exporter of arms. They have maintained that position for reasons which are very good in another context; namely, that they create employment. We suffer from unemployment. That is not due entirely to government policy. It is due also to the development of technology and the fact that people are being put out of work by the electronics revolution and so on. Making arms is a way in which to take up unemployment.
But it makes us anxious to find buyers. The Government and industry lay on great fairs. One is taking place at the moment for the Gulf states. We press them to buy our most modern weapons in the very largest numbers at the best prices that we can command. We succeed, and we shall continue to succeed, but if the United States and ourselves continue to succeed in persuading the Gulf states to pay us for major operations, as they did in the Gulf and again, in the past year, within Iraq, the Gulf princes will become poorer and poorer. As they become poorer and poorer and have more and more of our weapons, so their peoples will become more and more agitated as the wonderful consumer life which they lead is gradually withdrawn from them. The populations of the Gulf states are at the moment the greatest dependency culture in the world. If that decreases and the princes become broke and are overthrown, which is far from impossible, such has been the trend of British policy, that would be the very last thing we would want. We back them, but, I submit, are tending to overthrow them by our actions in pressing weapons down their throats. That is just one example. There are countless others where countries are the victims or the victimisers, or are morally innocent, or blinkered. But they just carry on the same.
As my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned, the trade could only be controlled by the United Nations. It is not in the nature of regional blocs to do anything on a world scale to control the circulation of arms—both new and second-hand arms. It is in the nature of the United Nations to do so, and members of the UN are beginning to understand that with the register. I am sure that in 100 years' time people will look back on the articles in the United Nations Charter which guarantee the right of a member state to act in its own self-defence and which preclude the United Nations from interfering in its internal affairs with surprise, understanding and perhaps even pity. Rather in the way that we look back now on the world of Shakespeare's histories where all barons and above—all Members of this House—were entitled to act

1255
in their own self-defence and no one, but no one, not even the king, had the right to intervene in their internal affairs. What England was in the 15th century, the world is now. What this Parliament is now, the United Nations must be in a 100 years' time.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the authors of 1066 and All That—Sellar and Yeatman—would have said, "United Nations, a good thing". I believe that that has come through in almost all the speeches that we have heard today. I add my gratitude to that already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—who, outside the Chamber, I am happy to call a noble friend —for his initiative in raising the subject and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I only quarrel with the noble Lord in one instance: I wish that the Americans would pay more attention to St. George rather than St. Patrick or St. David; or, even, St. Andrew. However, one never knows.
Many speakers mentioned the plaque on Central Hall commemorating the first meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I very much hope that that particular anniversary will be celebrated because it was unique and it might, perhaps, have given a different history to the UN if the permanent seat had in fact been in London. I believe that we would have been more pragmatic; but, alas, time has moved on.
My hero is Anthony Eden. I took the trouble to look up one of his speeches which was made on the 22nd August 1945 during a debate upon the United Nations Charter. He compared the failure, and the reasons for it, of the League of Nations with the prospects for the success of the United Nations. He made two points:
"The conception of democracy in international affairs led people to think—falsely, as I believe—that the League was constituted so that every nation must be regarded as exactly equal and there was no relation between power and responsibility. It was a case of one nation, one vote, with the result that Liberia was as important as the Soviet Union, and, if you like, Costa Rica as the United Kingdom. That was not a sound basis on which to found an international organisation, because it was not a basis of truth. Law and order, whether national or international, must be founded on truth, and, if it is not founded on truth, it pays the penalty eventually and is impotent when the crisis arises. It seems to me that we have embodied these lessons in the new world organisation, because, there, our membership is universal".— [Official Report, Commons, 22/8/45; cols. 674–5.]
Mr. Eden was, of course, picking up the point that the failure of the United States to support the League of Nations very clearly led to its downfall.
So, where are we now? What reforms do we need to consider to try to push the United Nations ahead for the next half century? As has already been said, its costs need to be examined; it is wasteful and bureaucratic. Talking to British representatives who sit as staff of the UN, their comment is that if only a Treasury Civil Service team could examine the methods of operation and know that its recommendations would be put into effect, millions of pounds could be saved. All the initiatives so far taken by successive Secretaries General have foundered upon the self-interest of many of the people who work within the organisation and no one has had the ability to push things forward.
1256
Just over three weeks ago I was in Washington as the vice-chairman of the political committee of the Western European Union. It was very clear from talks on the Hill and with research organisations that the new Republican majority, as has already been said, is highly critical of the United Nations. The Republicans want to reduce the American contribution to its expenditure. They do not want to pull out of the United Nations; indeed, they all made that perfectly clear. However, they believe that it is wasteful and that it is not carrying out the sort of task that the United States thinks it should be. I should like to add one comment to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I had very firm indications from almost the highest source within the Senate that the new Republican majority is even more supportive of NATO than the last Congress. That fact was confirmed in many conversations that I had in Washington.
One theme that has come through many of today's speeches is: should the Security Council have extra permanent members? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy spoke about Korea and the Gulf. We only had the success of the United Nations operation in Korea because the Soviets were not there to veto it. Therefore, if in fact we are talking about enlarging the membership of the Security Council we must remember that it would give more opportunity for vetoing and that it would also make it more difficult to obtain the sort of consensus that we have been getting since the disappearance of the Soviet empire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say very firmly that Her Majesty's Government will have no truck with the idea of merging the British and French seats and giving a seat to the European Union. I believe that most of us in this country would find that wholly repugnant and unacceptable.
Should the United Nations indulge in peacekeeping or peacemaking? More and more it is becoming fairly obvious that it cannot go on the way that it is going at present. One has spoken of the failures of the United Nations. People are asking: how can we reform it to make it more useful? I should remind noble Lords that the world set up the new organisation, the OCSE, which had great hopes some four years ago and which laid down in its Charter in Paris that no one who acquired territory by force from another country would have those borders recognised. How quickly those noble sentiments have been dispersed and how ignominious have been the attempts of those people who signed that document to justify what had happened, for example, in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What should the United Nations be doing? I looked at the proceedings which culminated in the Moscow declaration of 1943. That was fascinating. I am talking of a time at the height of the war when we had not even had D-Day. Two things were said by the participants at the proceedings:
"they will take all measures deemed by them to be necessary to provide against any violation of the terms imposed on the enemy".
That is fine; that recognises the position. The declaration continued that,
"they recognise the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organisation, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States and open to membership by all such States, large or small, for the maintenance of international peace and security".

1257
What they did not do—nor was it done even at a later stage—was to decide exactly how that should be done. Various ideas were floated. Anthony Eden floated the idea of a permanent force that might be under the control of the Secretary General, but that did not get off the ground. There is a problem, of course, in that. I prefer the idea of the voluntary agreement of many countries to have forces available if the Security Council asks them to intervene. But that will cost money and of course it will not be able to operate speedily enough.
I believe that peacemaking is therefore the only way forward but it needs political will which is not always there. Its operation, clearly, will interact with many of the other ideas that the United Nations has had, We have seen how that interaction has not worked with the UN and NATO as regards the bombing of one anti-aircraft site in Bosnia. That was no way in which it should operate. I am glad to see here at least two of my colleagues in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union who more than two-and-a-half years ago advocated much tougher action—along with me—against the Serbs, which might have saved tens of thousands of lives. But, alas, no one listened to us.
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the UN is the best thing we have got until we can find something better. Perhaps the old convention that the Secretary General should not come from one of the great five ought to be re-examined. After all, why should the five biggest contributors in terms of forces to peacekeeping, and in terms of contributions, be discriminated against when a new Secretary General is considered? Surely we want the best available Secretary General, irrespective of sex or nationality.
I end with one thought. How is the United Nations going to deal with the innumerable tactical nuclear weapons that have disappeared from the former Soviet Union and are in the hands of who knows who—Libya, Iran, Iraq? What will the United Nations do against international terrorism of the kind we have seen this week in Japan? Nothing in the set up of the United Nations was designed to cope with things like that. That is where I believe the United Nations needs to do some thinking. I hope it has an answer. If not, I have to say to the noble Lord who spoke earlier that his great-grandchildren will not see a future in a hundred years' time.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I believe that there is merit in being brief at this stage in a debate of this nature, but before I make what will be a few remarks I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, for the thought of introducing this debate to your Lordships' House this afternoon, and for the lucid and comprehensive manner in which he made his remarks. Before I say anything further, perhaps I should just say that if the Government Front Bench is not freewheeling at the moment, it should do so because I do not intend to put any question to the Minister who might feel that at a later stage she had to say something to me. Anyway I see she has been sensible and has gone off to have a cup of tea or something.
1258
I wish to place a viewpoint before your Lordships at this time of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations which, were I a journalist—as my noble friend Lady White said she was many years ago—would probably get my copy scored through with the famous blue pencil and nothing very much would be left. I say that because the media in this country—largely, in my view, going through an iconoclastic phase in its history, for reasons best known to its proprietors and probably its editors—simply loves "knocking" all. and sundry, and in this regard the United Nations is no exception.
However, I want to put to noble Lords—incidentally, I have to say there have been few this afternoon, who have made comment along these lines, but many outwith this Chamber make such comment—that the United Nations is more than an expensive and worthless talking shop. I wish to pose a series of straightforward questions. For example, without the United Nations, would we have declared warfare illegal? That is, of course, a proposition which I freely acknowledge is usually ignored in extreme difficulty. But it is there as an outline and theoretically at least it is the means of settling disputes.
Would we ever have promulgated the universal declaration of human rights? Would peace-keeping, or some attempt at peace-keeping, ever have been invented? Would smallpox have been eradicated from the face of the earth and polio from the Americas'? Would all those arms control and disarmament agreements regarding nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction—and the arms register—ever have been brought to fruition? Without the United Nations would the people of Namibia and Cambodia be better or worse off? Would the international struggle against apartheid in South Africa have been so persistently executed? Would decolonisation have happened so relatively smoothly? Would the great body of international human rights law which now exists ever have seen the light of day? Would the struggle to eradicate the very worst of global poverty and adequately to protect our environment have made any headway at all?
I answer my own questions by saying that I believe that progress in each or some of those areas would have occurred to some extent or another without any United Nations lead. Governments have their own agendas of conciliation, and other international and continental quasi-governmental bodies usually seek to confirm their status as being both beneficial in influence and indispensable in action, often identifying, for example, a social or a physical need at the point of need, and then bringing in the appropriate NGO where some action can take place. I also quite understand that in geo-political terms it has been an international agreement hammered out time and again against the background of difficult concessions and complicated negotiation by the countries concerned which has sustained the United Nations in its worldwide mandate.
In addition, in my view it is foolish to believe that, because a UN initiative is ignored or exploited, we should encourage the major powers to do likewise. On the contrary, continued adherence by those countries whose fiscal and political commitment is now being

1259
questioned should, more than ever, be encouraged. However, I posed those earlier questions in a serious manner. They are difficult to answer other than in the rather general way that I attempted.
I conclude, confirming my earlier comment that I intended to be brief, by saying that I accept as much as anyone the need to restructure key areas of the United Nations, to root out corruption wherever it exists and to tighten the administrative efficiency of the overall body. Nevertheless (a good Scots word), I believe that the United Nations deserves our thanks and praise far more than we often appear willing to admit. I should like that to be remembered in this debate.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I rise with trepidation in the presence of such distinguished company. I hope that your Lordships will accept graciously my humble contribution. I shall be brief.
The United Nations is at a crossroads. Contradictory assessments of its past performance and usefulness and divergent views concerning its future roles have given rise to political controversy. The South Commission report recently concluded that the dilemma in reforming the United Nations is that it is an institution with an unequal and diverse membership operating in a global economy system. Many would like to see changes while others are determined to maintain the status quo.
The United Nations of the future must be based on the universal values which inspired its creation 50 years ago. It can act as an agent of progress and change, but must not be expected to solve all the problems of the international community. Properly equipped, however, it can play an effective and leading role in improving the economic and social situation of the inhabitants of all the world's nations, not merely the fortunate few. The system could deal with the growing number of complex international challenges involving development, peace and security by providing leadership and vision. It can offer alternatives to the dominant policies and relationships which generate inequality and sow seeds of turmoil and conflict throughout the world.
Those who express views which tarnish the United Nation's image often do so, I regret, for political interest. The reality is that the failing of the United Nations is that it has not been allowed to do more of what it was established to do. We must rationalise the organisation, modernise the management, cut costs, reduce waste, adapt to the changing world, and in so doing strengthen the structure. We must dispel the dominant public image of the United Nations as a highly bureaucratised structure which is mismanaged, inefficient and corrupt, with low quality staff.
As has been mentioned, the organisation has been brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the deliberate withholding of legally obligated dues in an attempt to force the United Nations to accept given political and administrative preferences. New and stable sources of finance are urgently required, together with the creation of mechanisms to ensure the payment of dues.
1260
The United Nations exists for all mankind, not just for a handful of member states representing a small minority of the world's population. Javier Perez de Cuellar was clear:
"It is mainly up to Governments to decide if they wish to co-operate in building on this foundation a useful, coherent, effective institution, or whether they choose the alternative that may sometimes seem easier in the short run, each taking their own short-sighted and self-interested course".
This is not a time for despair but for determined efforts to rekindle the original inspirations and inject a new sense of purposeful direction, such that a strengthened United Nations will be able to fulfil the aspirations of many peoples around the world.
Fundamental issues have to be tackled, involving major reform. This 50th anniversary is an appropriate time to begin the process of debate leading to decisions.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Kirkhill in an appreciation of the United Nations rather than criticism of it. It is not that criticism is not possible, but on this occasion appreciation is more appropriate. On the whole, the United Nations is short on appreciation and this is a good opportunity for us to amend that. To that extent I also follow the noble Viscount who has just sat down.
Indeed, I go further. I hazard the view that if during the past 50 years there had been no United Nations, it is more than possible that by now we would no longer exist. During that period there were one or two very narrow shaves and a different course from the one that was taken might have been disastrous, in the fullest possible sense of that word.
It is generally agreed that the agencies created by the United Nations are among its greatest achievements—the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, the UN High Commission for Refugees, and even UNESCO. I join with those who have expressed the hope that we are about to rejoin that organisation, which seems to a large degree to have dealt with the problems which caused us to depart from it. I hope that we shall return.
In addition, there are the conventions and treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is an imperfect arrangement and not very efficient, but imagine what the situation would be now without it and if no attempt had been made to prevent the vast proliferation that could have taken place had there been no international determination to try to keep it at least at a minimum. Therefore, there are reasons to be grateful for the existence of the United Nations.
The conventions prohibiting biological and chemical warfare are no mean achievements. Either of those methods of warfare, had they been allowed to develop without any degree of control, had within them the same possibility of mass destruction, of both people and buildings, as, in a more frightening way, the nuclear weapon itself. To the extent that the United Nations has acted as a deterrent to the development of weapons of mass destruction, we have to be grateful for its existence.

1261
The non-proliferation treaty will come up for reconsideration in a month or two and we have to decide whether to advocate its permanent extension or its extension for a specified period. We might determine that consideration by asking ourselves, "What do we want to follow that treaty?" I wish to add my voice to those who say that the treaty should be developed into a convention so that the nuclear weapon could be outlawed, as are biological and chemical weapons. There is no reason that that should not be achieved and every reason that it should be. If we cannot take that step immediately, when considering extending the treaty, whether permanently or for a term, we should examine the possibility that over a period of time the convention should have the same value as the conventions relating to biological and chemical weapons. We could then eliminate, to whatever degree possible, the threat of mass destruction which has hung over the head of mankind for all these years.
That is all I wish to say. I began by saying that if there had been no United Nations for the past 50 years we might no longer exist. I venture to suggest that, if there were no United Nations over the next 50 years, our successors would be in even greater peril than we have been. It is up to us not only to praise and sustain the United Nations where we can, and to change it where necessary, but also to recognise that in the perilous time in which we live the fact that the superpowers no longer exist has not removed the dangers one iota. At present there is the possibility that development of nuclear weapons is spreading out from governments into the hands of criminals and gangs. There is an unhealthy and somewhat frightening development of nuclear material passing from country to country.
Having survived the past 50 years, it is not impossible that we may survive the next 50, provided that we are careful and clever. It is on that fraught note that I conclude. It is not a note of doom and gloom, but a warning that the possibility of survival is within our own hands and we must grasp it.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for bringing the debate to our attention, and how appropriate to do so on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.
I should like to address two slightly different specific points concerning the United Nations. The first is the development of a better understanding between UN military forces and humanitarian groups. The second is to bring to your Lordships' attention some aspects relating to the Cyprus problem.
I shall start with UN military forces and humanitarian organisations, which are rather like chalk and cheese. However, they both have a job to do and a successful mission is unlikely to be achieved without the support of both those organisations when deployed.
If a UN operation is to be successful, it is essential that both the military and humanitarian organisations work in the closest harmony, learning to trust each other implicitly. How can that be achieved? I suggest that
1262
much more joint training and liaison should take place in countries, including the United Kingdom, where those organisations live side by side. The military should invite those non-governmental organisations to their study days and training for possible UN deployments, and the humanitarian organisations should do the same and invite the military to their seminars to take part in their discussions.
Currently, military forces are welcomed initially to stabilise potential flashpoints and to control areas by patrolling and observation to prevent atrocities from taking place. However, soon after the arrival of the military, NGOs tend to distance themselves from them as the warring parties lose confidence in NGOs if they are seeking to side with the military, losing their unbiased status.
Your Lordships may well recall that in a debate a year ago I proposed that there should be two peacekeeping colleges, one for senior personnel in New York run by headquarters United Nations, and the other run on a privatised basis in the United Kingdom to train students from NGOs and the military at around the level of lieutenant colonel and below. No further action has been taken at this stage in respect of those two training colleges, but the proposal is not dead. I am glad to be able to say to your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Chalker has been most helpful and we are some months down the road with an important study looking into the social impact and intergroup relations of humanitarian protection and peacekeeping operations for the training of UN military forces in the future.
I now turn to Cyprus and the United Nations force which has been there for just over 30 years since 1964. I have had the privilege of serving in that United Nations force, known as UNFICYP, shortly after Turkey intervened with her army in 1974, and some years ago I had overall responsibility while serving in headquarters land forces in the sovereign base area for the logistic support and general assistance to that force.
At this point I should like to remind your Lordships that the military part of this force has been a model for achieving the UN's mission to provide a stable environment in which negotiations can take place between the political leaders of the two opposing sides in Cyprus. It is to the immense credit of the UN that, with the exception of the Turkish intervention, UNFICYP has provided a stable platform for political negotiations. It is not the fault of UNFICYP peacekeeping troops that time and again the talks between the two sides have broken down. That is the fault of the political advisers and negotiators.
I do not agree that the existence of UNFICYP has prevented both sides from reaching an agreement; and I do not think that just because UN resources are so stressed and strained worldwide UNFICYP should be withdrawn in an attempt to pressurise the two leaders into accepting proposed solutions. Anyone who believes in that approach does not understand the Cyprus situation and the depth of the present mistrust between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In my opinion, to withdraw the UN force would create a return to genocide and no responsible government should vote for that line of action.

1263
At this point I wish to pay tribute to the UN for the way in which UNFICYP has been organised and controlled and for its perseverance to try and achieve a political settlement. The main mission of peacekeeping troops is to preserve the status quo and relieve human suffering. They do not actively find a settlement—that is for political advisers, negotiators and the leaders of a troubled country like Cyprus.
I should like also to pay a large tribute and extend our deep gratitude to the British Army and Royal Air Force, who have been the backbone in UNFICYP and who have faced many serious difficulties over 30 years. It is the leadership, dedication and high professionalism that is found in British regiments which has set the standards and provided the example of how a United Nations force should be run. We should all be grateful that we have such professional and highly skilled Armed Forces that never fail this country.
I served in Cyprus first in 1967 and in those days appalling and shocking atrocities occurred frequently, with the most barbarous and most cruel murder of men, women and children, In 1974, Turkey intervened with its army which advanced from the northern coast of Cyprus to Nicosia causing some 160,000 Greek Cypriots to flee to the south of Cyprus. A line of demarcation running east to west through Nicosia, between the Turkish Cypriots in the north and the Greek Cypriots in the south, was established and became known as the Attila line. Since the establishment of that line, patrolled, policed and observed by UNFICYP, there have been only minor encroachments which have all been successfully dealt with by the UN force. Soon after the Attila line came into being, 45,000 Turkish Cypriots were removed from their homes and escorted to the northern part of Cyprus for security reasons. Many of the villagers were evacuated from mixed villages where Turkish and Greek Cypriots were living happily side by side. The Turkish Cypriot evacuation, which took place at around four o'clock on three successive mornings, may have been a highly successful UN security operation, but to me it was a most harrowing occasion vented with emotion, with sights of distraught and disturbed Turkish Cypriots handing over their houses and livestock to their Greek Cypriot friends for care and safe custody. Then they were bundled into the backs of lorries and old buses, with their few and scant personal belongings packed in old cardboard boxes and wrapped inside sheets. That is an appalling and sorrowful memory for me.
In practice, the military role of UNFICYP then changed from the protection of safe havens dotted throughout Cyprus to observing and patrolling a buffer zone in order to separate former belligerents. However, I hear on occasions that pressure should be brought to bear on the leaders of a divided Cyprus to bring about a political settlement. Those pressures, apart from a possible withdrawal of UNFICYP—and I have already informed your Lordships that I am in complete disagreement with that—seem to take the form, first, of proposals for demilitarisation of both sides. Secondly, it
1264
would give the Republic of Cyprus—the Greek Cypriot community—membership of the European Union some time after 1996.
I cannot agree with either of those two proposals for the following reasons. I do not believe that pressures such as demilitarisation and a subsequent withdrawal of UNFICYP as we know it now would be in any way helpful. In my view, it would be disastrous and highly irresponsible for any government to adopt such a course, as it would lead to a return of genocide, with a never-ending number of revenge killings to atone for the past. In some way, rather like the Cold War, the armies of Turkey in the north and the national guard in the south, separated by the thin blue line of the United Nations in the middle, provide the stable platform for political negotiation. To remove all three would without any doubt be a disaster.
I believe it would be a regrettable and unwise step to allow the Greek Cypriots membership of the European Union at this time. It is a provocative step which Mr. Clerides welcomes. He argues that accession of the Greek Cypriots would force Turkey and Mr. Denktas to think seriously of the Cyprus political problems. Mr. Denktas argues that accession by the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union will secure the full integration of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Turkey has concurred with that statement. To bring in the European dimension at this stage can only be damaging and set back any political agreements which may have been in the offing.
What is the way ahead? First, I believe that it is to urge political advisers to make even greater efforts with the cause of a settlement to the Cyprus problem. To that end, maximum support should be given to the confidence-building measures of opening Varosha and Nicosia airports to all Cypriots. Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktas accepted these measures in principle in February 1994, only a year ago. But neither side was able to agree the detailed drafting. It should be possible to redraft those details to make them acceptable to both sides. The agreement and acceptance of confidence-building measures would he a major stepping stone in the eventual reunification of Cyprus.
Secondly, a recent European Court ruling preventing the export of goods and merchandise from Northern Cyprus to Europe should be reviewed. If agreement can be accepted for the proposed confidence-building measures, the ruling should be overturned. Thirdly, it should be clearly stated that there will be no consideration of any application to the European Union until such time as a lasting political settlement is agreed between the two sides in Cyprus.
In conclusion, there are a considerable number of Cypriots on both sides who have experienced 20 years of sleeping peacefully in their beds at night, which they welcome more than anything else. Many of them tell me that they have forgotten about their properties, either north or south of the line. They are content and happy with their new peaceful way of life. However, with the daily increasing threat of fundamentalism in Turkey and throughout the Middle East, it would be easy for Cyprus to become once more a flashpoint in the eastern Mediterranean, possibly leading to a shattering of the

1265
south-east flank of NATO. The western powers should act now with great urgency to ensure a political settlement to the Cyprus problem, before further disturbances break out in the eastern Mediterranean area.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, first I wish to express my appreciation for the excellent speeches from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I was also interested in the part of the debate that involved the patron saints. Various people argued the good points of the different patron saints and it reminded me of the wisdom of my Welsh mother. She sent us to a little church on Kilvey Hill called "All Saints, Kilvey". She could not go wrong and nor could we.
All world organisations today continue to search for some measure to prevent wars and overcome diseases. They should also be aware that folly is often more cruel than malice can be in the intent.
I wish to mention the League of Nations, which was created when I was a young man. Those of us who were in South Wales knew the dangers not of war but of working in a pit and either having what we called "the dust" which later had the posh name of pneumoconiosis; or having the fear of a fall in the pits, with the agony of trying to dig through to the men before they could be released. That was no world war, but for those of us in the valleys of South Wales every disaster was disgraceful and should never have happened.
In those days the League of Nations was the first international organisation whose task was to preserve peace and security. We were proud that we in the United Kingdom, together with the USA, were the major people who helped to do that. We must not forget that it was the League of Nations that first tackled drugs, slavery and many other vicious evils. In many ways it was sad that the organisation was dissolved, but now we have the United Nations, which succeeded it. We have seen the world summit of the UN calling for social development, attacking poverty, unemployment and social disintegration.
The Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, called for an international summit at global level to enhance social development. I believe that that is vital for all mankind. Some degree of social development is required in almost every country and we must do our best to ensure that poverty is eradicated. By that means we shall provide a wealthier and better United Nations.
The United Nations also achieved something remarkable in that it created International Women's Day. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will mention it in her reply and it has shown that women have every right to be in all the professions.
Attempting to find solutions to problems in various parts of the world is a tremendous task. How do we resolve situations in Angola, Croatia, Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Georgia, Mozambique and Guatemala? Then there are the terrible events and threats in Africa. I believe that the Security Council needs and deserves world support. I am sure that our country will give a
1266
lead in that. We need international partnerships in the hope that world environments will improve. Once again the UK has given a lead in debt relief for the poorest. We can be proud of the endeavours of our Government and our country. In these sorts of matters the parties are united in doing the civilised, decent things.
The United Nations is far from perfect, but it is the only organisation that we have on which to build in order to achieve world security. Through the United Nations all mankind can contribute to the day when mankind will be proud and free. I believe that that can be achieved in due course if we give the United Nations the full support which it so richly deserves.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, this House may remember that on 5th December I asked an Unstarred Question about the conflict in the Western Sahara and what action the UK Government were taking, as a member of the UN Security Council, about it. In the short debate that followed, and indeed in his excellent speech today, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly stressed the central role that the United Kingdom plays in the United Nations as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. He said that if the Security Council were being formed today it is almost inconceivable that the United Kingdom would be offered permanent membership. The noble Lord added:
"However, permanent membership is what we have inherited based on the world as it was in 1945. If we want to retain that permanent place we must justify it. In our post-imperial, post-colonial era, the way in which we can best look to our interests is to be second to none in our commitment to international institutions, which are vital for effective global governance".—[Official Report, 5/12/94; col. 812.]
Noble Lords do not need me to tell them that the noble Lord was right.
However, perhaps I do need to tell the House, and particularly the noble Baroness the Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard, that the reputation of the UN—and therefore, by implication, of the United Kingdom—now stands at zero in the refugee camps of the Western Sahara from where I have just returned. The Minister herself said in the debate on the Queen's Speech last November that there is no United Nations other than its member states. Yet I had it openly said to me by the present Foreign Office Minister in his office that there was no reason why the United Kingdom should go out of its way to support the UN peace plan for the Western Sahara when there was nothing in it for us by doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also touched on this unacceptably cynical and selfish attitude as being totally inappropriate to a nation that wishes to retain its permanent membership of the Security Council. Again, the noble Lord is right. Noble Lords could be forgiven if they rapidly reach the conclusion that I am about to use the opportunity of this debate on the United Nations and its first 50 years for a "second go" on the situation in the Western Sahara and the UN role in that sad and long-standing dispute. And why not? I make no bones about it; and I give fair warning that I intend to pursue the topic at every opportunity. I think I owe it to people

1267
who have been forced out of their homes and country at gunpoint, who have been subjected to tons of high explosives, napalm, phosphorous and cluster-bombs being dropped on them, and who have been forced to exist in exile in the most barren region of the Sahara desert for the past 20 years while the world looked the other way.
I do not propose to go into the long list of complaints and accusations which the Saharawi people, in their prolonged agony, level against the UN as I intend to produce a report on my recent visit to their camps which will include those in some detail. I shall forward that report to the noble Baroness the Minister at her request. However, I can state here and now, without any doubt and with no reservation, that the long-suffering people out there have just about had enough. They have very nearly reached the end of their tether. If something is not done very soon by the UN to halt the constant Moroccan violations of the cease-fire and the cynical manipulations of the peace plan by the Moroccan authorities that take place on a massive scale, then hostilities will inevitably recommence. No doubt if that happens the Saharawis will carry the blame for it and will be labelled as warmongers.
As I said in my speech on 5th December, the very least that this country must do, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, is to take a much more robust role in supporting peace processes wherever they occur, including the Western Sahara. To be selective as to where we protect people's rights is unacceptable and unsustainable. By doing so, we demean ourselves.
I should like to quote from Oxfam briefing paper No. 8, dated 13th January 1995, which was produced for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. On the back page it states:
"What upholds rights, however, is law and the means to enforce it. What governments have not succeeded in doing in the UN's first half-century is to create an accepted and enforceable international rule of law. Too many governments seem to believe that law can be broken in one part of the world, but upheld in another. But it is not sustainable to protect people's rights in Kuwait, but not in Goma"—
or for that matter in the Western Sahara—
"any more than it would be sustainable to prosecute someone for murder in London, but not in Liverpool. As the UN moves into its second half-century, its credibility and that of the Security Council, and its member states, will increasingly depend on how consistently and effectively the international rule of law is applied".
I take great comfort from the Secretary General's agenda for peace in which he places prime importance on preventive diplomacy. Prevention has always been preferable to cure. Perhaps this is the way into the future. But it will not be much comfort to the millions of people who have already paid for the murderous sins of others with their lives, or to those who have suffered losses to their families and friends or who have been forced to leave their homeland and all their possessions and go into exile. What do we tell them? How do we explain to them our failure to protect their rights and, worse, our inability or lack of earnest desire to do anything to assist them to regain all that is rightfully theirs?
1268
All this talk about preventive diplomacy and deployments, fast-track standby arrangements and improved UN bureaucracy is just so much hot air to Somalians, Bosnians, Rwandans, even Turkish Cypriots, Kurds, the people of East Timor and the Saharawis, to name but a few. The UN is our only real hope. Therefore, we must see that it is well funded and impartial, that it is not afraid to speak up and censor members for wrongdoings, and that it is incorruptible. Sadly, on all these counts, it is guilty, and therefore it is hardly surprising that people like the Saharawis have lost any faith that they may once have had in it.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I speak with some reticence in this debate since I do not have the wealth of experience in international affairs that is possessed by many noble Lords. I decided, however, to speak since, like the United Nations, I am in my 50th year; and like one or two other 50 year-olds in this House I was asked by the United Nations Association to do what I can to draw attention to the anniversary of the UN and to promote discussion about the UN's role in the post-Cold War world. I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for providing me with this opportunity.
I want to concentrate on just one matter; namely, the role of the UN in relation to human rights. For most of its history, the role of the UN in protecting human rights has been hampered by Cold War rivalries played out in the Security Council. However, with the ending of the Cold War, many have seen the opportunity for the international community, acting through the UN, to play a more vigorous role in the protection of human rights throughout the world. This is indeed an opportunity, but it is one which in my view is fraught with danger, and I should like to explain why. In a sense, my speech will be something of a counterpoint to that of my noble friend Lord Judd. I do not think that we disagree, but the problems weigh a little more heavily with me than do the opportunities.
We need perhaps to go into the history a little to elucidate why there may be dangers in taking a more active role in pursuing human rights. Ever since the conclusion of the Thirty Years War by the peace of Westphalia in 1648, there has been a recognition of the sovereignty and legal equality of states. The Treaty of Westphalia implicitly established the principle that there was to be no transnational moral order such as that derived from Christendom, in terms of which the morality of states could be judged and used as a moral basis for one state or a collection of states to intervene in the affairs of another. Sovereignty was not to be constrained by morality. State sovereignty was to be the basis of international relations and if there was any guiding ethical principle to govern relations between states, it was to be the norm of non-intervention. Since there was no transnational moral framework to regulate states and to be represented in law, then intervention could not be justified except in terms of self-defence.
That in turn led to another basic principle in this understanding of international relations; namely, that states will act out of a conception of their own interests

1269
rather than out of a concern to protect what on this view is a non-existent set of moral values rooted in a sense of common humanity. As my noble friend, Lord Healey of Riddlesden, put the point in New Fabian Essays in 1951:
"nation states are political entities, not moral entities; with interests and desires, not rights and duties".
On that view we should have a norm of non-intervention because intervention threatens the harmony of a society of sovereign states able to pursue in their own way what they see as their domestic and international interests in ways which do not interfere with the ability of other states to do the same. If we look at the forms of intervention which took place before the end of the Cold War—for example, the Tanzania intervention in Uganda in 1978–79—the claim to intervention was based on those same principles. The Tanzanian Government argued not that they were seeking to preserve human rights in Uganda, but rather intervening because Ugandan forces had invaded the Kegera Salient which was claimed to be part of Tanzanian territory. The United States justified its invasion of Grenada on the basis of a claim to be protecting US citizens. The argument of intervention was not that of upholding human rights, but self-defence—or vicarious self-defence in the case of Grenada.
However, with the end of the Cold War I believe that we may be in the process of transition in international affairs in which there will be growing pressure to intervene in the affairs of states based upon the notion which was rejected in 1648; namely, a transnational moral and political order which in our day is defined in terms of the set of human rights identified in the UN declaration.
In many ways that is a very beguiling picture and it was painted particularly so by my noble friend Lord Judd. If there are basic human rights which all people share on the basis of their common humanity, it may be argued that we all have some responsibility for their protection and that the UN should develop both the collective will to secure those rights and the collective power to do so, a theme which came into the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, a few moments ago.
However, there is a case to be met which suggests that such an approach is fraught with danger, despite its obvious humanitarian appeal. There are five reasons why that may be so and those who favour the human rights/intervention approach need to meet this case. First, it can be argued that there is in fact no agreed moral basis for a more interventionist approach. While there may be a commitment to human rights, what those rights require for their protection will be a matter of legitimate political dispute and there may be catastrophic differences in interpreting what may be sanctioned under general principles.
Secondly, large and powerful states would be immune from such intervention, despite their human rights record. That would undermine the view that intervention was being justified in terms of common human rights. Thirdly, intervention would infringe the equality of sovereign states because any such intervention, for the
1270
reasons I suggested, would have hugely differential effects between rich and poor, powerful and less powerful states.
Fourthly, if we look at the history of intervention, the outcome is likely to be as bad as the circumstance which the intervention was originally designed to overcome. Fifthly, if states act out of concern for general principles such as human rights, rather than their own palpable interests, they may run the danger of not carrying the support of their people with them. While we may wish it were not so, ordinary people, particularly those whose sons and so forth may be asked to serve in the armed forces, will want to know why we are doing it. There must be some link between serving a general principle and what ordinary people believe national interests might be.
Many of us feel torn over this matter. On the one hand many are attracted by the words of the last Secretary General, Mr. Pérez de Cuellar, who argued in 1991,
"It is now increasingly felt that the principle of non-interference with the essential domestic jurisdiction of States cannot be regarded as a protective barrier behind which human rights could he massively and systematically violated with impunity",
As I said, that is a beguiling view. Equally, intervention based on general principles such as rights, can lead us to make major mistakes. As the American philosopher, Michael Walzer, once said,
"Foreigners … don't know enough about … [a state's] history, and they have no direct experience and can form no concrete judgments of the conflicts and harmonies, the historical choices and cultural affinities, the loyalties and resentments, that underlie it".
This is not just a theoretical problem, as the UN Vienna conference on rights two years ago showed. There was fundamental disagreement between the western states, the Islamic states and China about what a commitment to rights required and what "rights" actually meant in specific circumstances. Responding to those historical and cultural differences the US Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher, argued in Vienna that,
"we cannot let cultural relativism become the refuge of repression"
In other words, because we differ culturally in what we think "rights" may mean, we cannot leave the question of intervention to be governed by that kind of consideration; the implication being that a set of rights can become the basis for collective responsibility and action by the international community.
My conclusion is rather bland and reflects my own uncertainties. We have to be concerned about human rights. But that concern cannot become in itself a categorical basis for a new moral order in international affairs. We must be careful to weigh the costs and benefits of intervention and to ensure that national and regional interests are linked with any case for intervention on the defence of human rights; otherwise, domestic populations are unlikely to support governments risking lives in the service of what may be seen as important but nevertheless rather abstract principles. If human rights are to become the basis of a new world order and collective action by the international community, it is essential that they are seen

1271
as being linked to security and our own interests in that security. We should count the costs and weigh the consequences carefully.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it is difficult to say anything new when one is batting No. 20 on the list. However, I want to say a few words about what a privilege it is for us to join in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. This is not really a debate. Of course there have been useful contributions making criticisms of this or that aspect of the United Nations. But it is not really a debate. There is a consensus in the House today that the United Nations is essential for our survival.
Inevitably, when one is celebrating 50 years one looks back to the beginning. That has been the case with many of the speakers today. I too should like to look back to the beginning. I had the privilege to have an interview with H.G. Wells. It must have been about 1944 because he died in 1946. He was the great gum of my generation. He had forecast the war of the worlds. He had warned about the dangers of the destructive instruments which we now had at our disposal. I made my way up to his flat in Regent's Park. All around it houses were bombed and devastated. He sat there quietly and I asked him two questions. I was a young man at the time. First, I asked, "What am I to do with my life?" Secondly, I asked, "What is the future of mankind?" I shall not weary the House with the answer to the first question because it is not the subject of today's debate but I have tried to accept his guidance in my life subsequently. Looking at the future of mankind, he said, "I am a biologist and any species that does not adapt to its environment inevitably perishes. That is the history of the science of biology. Today in the world we have conquered communications. We can fly in a few hours to all parts of the world. We can lift the telephone and talk to each other in Australia or California. We are living in an environment where mankind has been brought closer together and where our interdependence should be recognised. If you do not create the political instruments that recognise that fact, then mankind will perish". I believe that to be true, and in so far as we have succeeded in creating one of the instruments for human survival, we are just likely to survive.
I was a conscientious objector during the war and joined the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in order to play some part in the reconstruction of the devastated European continent. I was fortunate to have that opportunity. For me, the United Nations was not about glamorous conferences which are so prevalent nowadays. I notice that the Minister does not think that the conferences are all that glamorous. They look glamorous on television and they provide a platform for important statesmen to make important statements. I commend to the House an
1272
extract from the Economist in which it is said that perhaps the United Nations is becoming over-conferenced. It says:
"On the 50th birthday we may have over conferenced. After the environment in 1992, human rights in 1993, population in 1994 and with women as well as social development coming in 1995 the world is suffering a little from conference fatigue. Rich summiteers will be much keener to put their names to distant objectives rather than to accept the immediate needs of the horribly poor in Africa and Asia".
We are in danger in international relations of holding summit conferences and making generalised statements with which everyone can agree and taking our minds off the day-to-day activity which is necessary to make the United Nations a reality in relieving suffering, helping the poor and bringing comfort to refugees. We are in danger of generalisation. I always remember the words of William Blake, who said, "I have little time for people who do good in general. They are hypocrites. Give me the men and women who do good in the particular".
I worked for the United Nations and I have my UN passport to prove it. I worked in trying to rebuild Europe following the destruction that took place. It was a wonderful thing to do. Millions of people were wandering about the continent. They were refugees, with no homes and few prospects. They had nothing to offer but their labour. We handled 1.5 million refugees in Europe. We had displaced persons' camps. They were small cities in their own right. We brought some kind of relief to the suffering people at that time. Not only did we bring them immediate relief, which was a case of supplying food, clothing and so on, but the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration was engaged in rehabilitation; in helping people to help themselves, not as recipients of charity but through being able to do things to lift themselves out of the despair in which they found themselves.
The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration was succeeded by new agencies. The work of refugees is now in the hands of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It does a tremendous job in the name of the United Nations. Last year I visited Yugoslavia and went to refugee camps. I saw the same sad faces I had seen in Germany in 1945 and 1946. There were children who had lost their parents, their homes and any real purpose in life. They were gathered around television sets in refugee camps watching American cowboy films. That was the extent of their excitement in life. I felt that I was back again at the end of the war. Nowadays the United Nations is doing a tremendous job through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with a very small staff and very few resources. We have to look at all these contributions. There is the contribution of UNICEF for the relieving of the suffering of children. It builds playgroups and homes and brings education to people. Those are the kinds of positive things that are important in establishing the United Nations' reputation.
Today we are celebrating the 50th anniversary. We have celebrated the good work and we have recognised some of the weaknesses that inevitably exist in large

1273
international organisations. But at least we can be thankful for the positive contribution that has been made by the UN.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will allow me to ask a question. I very much enjoyed his passage about the prevalence of summit meetings at the UN. But would he not consider that the important statements made by important statesmen at those meetings can sometimes usefully be used by the rest of us when we feel that our governments are not instantly doing everything they ought to do?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Lord. Conferences are important; meeting people is important in international relations; understanding other people's points of view is important in international relations. Conferences achieve that. But I was trying to emphasise the more detailed coalface activities of the United Nations.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I must apologise that I had to leave in the middle of it for some time, but I have had a full report of everything that was said. Inevitably, I agree with some parts, of that report and disagree with other parts. I am told that that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said that:
"the failure of the United Nations is that it has not been allowed to do more than it was set up to do".
If that is an accurate report of what he said, I entirely agree with him. It seems to encapsulate some of the problems.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, that 50th birthdays are usually a good time for taking stock not only for the United Nations but also for the individual. I am glad to have seen present here today the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber. I gather that he is one of only two UK citizens who were present when the Charter was signed in San Francisco. One was Lord Gladwyn; the other was Mr. Archie McKenzie, who served with me in New York as the chief economics diplomat. He is still very much alive. Indeed, I saw him recently. I hope that, as the other British survivor of San Francisco, he will not be totally forgotten when the invitation lists for whatever is taking place come to be drawn up.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for having initiated the debate. I appreciate the way in which he opened it. In effect, he asked three questions: what has the United Nations done in the past 50 years? What is it doing now? What is it likely to be doing in the future? Those questions sum up the whole object of the debate. Various people have expressed degrees of optimism and degrees of realism. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, expressed a degree of pessimism about the future. In some ways, I suppose that every speaker, from his own perspective, has a degree of truth and accuracy in what he said.
Indeed, 50th birthdays are a good time for taking stock. The first heady days are over by that time. The institution or individual has settled down into a
1274
comfortable middle age. There is a history of past performance that can be assessed and there is the prospect of a reasonable working life to come. So it is with the United Nations in 1995.
When one considers the future of the UN in a world that is increasingly characterised by ever faster change, it is important to look at the UN as it is and not perhaps as we would wish it to be. We must recognise that a new world order is not necessarily a new world government. Indeed, we must acknowledge that the real nature of the United Nations has not radically altered since the Charter was signed. It might be coming under pressure and in some respects may be becoming distorted, but the original structure is basically intact.
It was conceived, rightly so, in those days as a free association of independent states coming together for specific purposes, which themselves were set out in the Charter. If one looks at the Charter, it is interesting to see that those objectives were fairly limited. Right at the centre was the proposition that the organisation was based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.
The purposes of the United Nations, as set out in Article 1 of the Charter, were:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and internal law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace".
Those are the objectives that were set out.
Article 2.7, to which my noble friend Lord Plant referred (and I shall say something about it a little later), sets out in very specific terms—it is worth underlining how specific those terms are—the principle of non-interference in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. It states:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which arc essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state … this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII".
Thus, the two organisational pillars (if I may put it that way) on which the United Nations was founded were that it was an association of independent states and that it should not interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any one of those states. Indeed, it is the relationship between those two fundamental principles set out in the Charter and the way in which Chapter VII—the enforcement of international peace and security sections—is being operated now which may cause difficulties in the future. That is well worth looking at on this occasion of its 50th anniversary. It is against that background that one has to assess the effectiveness of the UN during the last half century and try to appreciate the possibilities for the future.
Although the Charter has not changed much since 1945, the size and nature of the membership of the UN has changed. It mirrors the changes that have taken place in the world as a whole. It is highly unlikely, if one were now bringing into being such an international organisation, that a permanent membership of five would include Britain and France and exclude Japan and

1275
Germany. It is also highly likely that the Third World would take the view that it should not be ignored quite so comprehensively as it was in 1945. Apart from anything else, as has been pointed out in this debate, the number of countries now members of the UN has increased enormously since then: from 51 to 184. Countries such as Brazil, India and Nigeria (to mention only three) would be pushing hard for permanent membership of a reorganised Security Council. Nor is there any guarantee that 15 would be seen as the proper size of a new Security Council. Perhaps it should be larger or have greater regional connotations; perhaps the entrenched nature of the permanent membership and the privileged position that they have—each holding a veto—might be called into question; and perhaps too the relationship between the Secretary General and the Council may have to be reconsidered. There might be a case, as the Secretary General has argued, for permanent United Nations' forces to be more at the disposal of the Secretary General himself.
All those are matters which would have to be negotiated if one were starting again. Fortunately one is not. So, given the fact that we are dealing with an association of sovereign states coming together within the existing structures and as set out in the existing Charter—indeed the realistic possibility is that it is that structure which will continue and it is within that broad framework that we shall have to operate—what can we now realistically expect from that extraordinary institution of the United Nations? Those of us who have worked in it or with it know that it is a most remarkable institution.
Fundamental to the successful political operation of the UN is the institutional position of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We know that the position of those five depends upon the fact that they were the main victorious allies in the Second World War and each therefore has a veto on Security Council action, although in recent years that veto has not been greatly used. It is very interesting too to note that, while in the early days of the existence of the UN the Soviet Union used its veto a great deal, in the past 20-odd years it is fair to say that the Soviet Union has indeed been increasingly reluctant to make use of that veto.
Recognising that the United Nations is not a democratic structure, and indeed was never intended to be so, the successful operation of the Security Council depends on at least the acquiescence of all five permanent members; otherwise there is inactivity, as there was for many years. In the years I spent at the United Nations it was relatively inactive as far as the Security Council was concerned. We did a lot, met a lot, talked a lot and we tried to do a lot. But we did not actually succeed in doing all that much because of the way in which action tended to be stifled by disagreement between the five permanent members. I can only say that it has improved greatly since I left. I do not necessarily say that that is cause and effect, but the fact of the matter is that the situation has now been transformed. I believe that from the moment Mr. Gorbachev decided that the then Soviet Union would take the United Nations seriously, that the interests of
1276
the Soviet Union required a greater degree of international stability and that one could use the United Nations to create it, the situation changed.
The position in which the five rarely, if ever, successfully co-operated together has now changed so much that no major issue of security can now be realistically raised without their discussing it first. The only issue I can remember when the five co-operated when I was there was on that of Charter reform. There were various moves by some countries to reform the Charter itself. One will not be surprised to hear that the British and French were against the idea of Charter reform and the Russians were passionately opposed to it.
In those circumstances the five actually met and discussed it. It was an essentially negative and very defensive posture that we all took up on one relatively important issue, but which was not desperately concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security. Now I understand that the five meet on a regular basis. There is a rotating chairmanship; minutes are kept; the position is co-ordinated fully prior to an issue even reaching the stage of unofficial informal consultations at the Security Council.
It means that provided the five continue to act in concert they can virtually guarantee the acquiescence of the Security Council as a whole. That situation has obvious advantages in terms of getting the council to act and not merely talk. It also has disadvantages in terms of the rest of the membership. They perceive it as fundamentally elitist in its nature and over-privileged in the way it works. How much longer the other nations of the world will be prepared to allow the five to maintain their existing privileges is a matter that I do not believe anyone can clearly foresee. Although the number of permanent members may have to be increased, as long as they continue to act with the degree of consensus which they are showing at present the fundamentals of that position will probably remain unchanged.
There is no doubt—and it has emerged in the course of this debate—that functionally the United Nations is now infinitely more effective than it ever was before the Cold War ended. The Security Council itself is much more of an executive and less of a deliberative body. That is probably all to the good, although it may be less fun for those people actually taking part in the deliberations. After all, it was designed to be an executive arm of the United Nations although it is only recently that there has been enough political agreement to allow it to operate as such.
That the United Nations operates in a somewhat untidy way is not something at which we should be too surprised. Nowhere in the Charter is there any mention of peacekeeping, yet in 1993 there were no less than 70,000 troops in blue berets stationed around the world engaged in precisely that job. As far as enforcement action is concerned, the Gulf War, whatever else it showed, proved that force can be organised and applied under the aegis of the UN if not under the direction of the Military Staff Committee. I believe that everyone will agree that such action would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

1277
So the position we have now reached is of a United Nations which formally and institutionally has not changed a great deal since 1945, but which is at last beginning to act more in the way that the Charter originally envisaged. I believe that we ought to consider the extent to which that will continue in future.
I believe that the real problem for the United Nations in future is going to be the number and scope of interventions that it will be called upon to take. There is a feeling abroad—and it has been echoed by some noble Lords in this debate today—that if something goes wrong in the world, whatever it is, then the UN ought to do something about it. It is not only that the UN ought to do something about it, but that it ought to be able to do something about it. People may not be clear as to precisely what it is that the United Nations can do, or should do, but that it has a general obligation to try to do something. That is an opinion which seems to be increasingly held.
I listened to the words of wisdom which came from some speakers in this debate—notably those of the noble Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—expressing caution. I am prepared to express caution, but I am bound to say that I have considerable sympathy with the point of view which says that something ought to be done if something ought to be done. There is no other institution or organisation in the world that I know of which is capable of providing the degree of co-operation, co-ordination, leadership and, if necessary, force, to do something other than the United Nations itself.
That means that the scope of international intervention has grown. For example, in Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Namibia, Bosnia and in the Gulf different types of action were required. In Cambodia, Namibia and Mozambique what was needed was the organisation and supervision of a democratic process leading to elections and a fresh government. In Bosnia what has been required is massive humanitarian assistance in a situation which has imposed almost a straitjacket of neutrality. In many ways the Gulf was, at least in principle, one of the simplest actions. It was an example of old-fashioned aggression by one country on another and therefore firmly within the scope of actions originally envisaged by Chapter 7 of the Charter.
So while the machinery has remained pretty much the same the circumstances in which it is being called on to operate have changed radically. The utility of peacekeeping efforts by the UN is, I believe, now generally accepted. The fact that that activity is outside the terms of the Charter has demonstrated that the UN is capable of flexibility and innovation. I have no doubt that this part of the UN's work will continue and indeed intensify.
There will be increasing difficulties over problems arising within countries rather than between states. At least in theory, we do not at the moment have power to intervene in a civil war. We do not have power to intervene where a government is persecuting a minority within its own borders unless it gives rise to a more generalised threat to the peace, which it frequently does not. Yet it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the world now to ignore evidence of genocide on a large scale or of oppression by a state of its own population
1278
on a major scale, even if it were to take place solely within the borders of one state and even if it were to be carried on by the government of that state.
What we lack, however, is a corpus of law, or at least of international understanding, as to the circumstances in which Article 2.7 of the Charter should be, if not exactly ignored, at least interpreted more flexibly. I hope that that is a direction in which we shall all be prepared to move.
Perhaps I may say one final word about pre-emptive diplomacy. I am sure that there is greater scope for the use of such things as the good offices of the Secretary General and his staff or, more directly, by the Security Council itself. The UN has perhaps been too much of a reactive organisation in the past. Things have happened. The Security Council has met and then done something or tried to do something. The task of looking at things in the future is not one which has been performed by the United Nations and the Security Council with great skill. In future it may well have to become one in which greater thought is given to preventing situations from happening rather than, as now, trying to deal with problems when they have actually arisen.
I came across a quotation recently by F.E. Cornford. It is somewhat cynical and I give it merely in order to knock it down. I hope that it does not reflect the mood in which this country is now approaching the affairs of the United Nations:
"Nothing is ever done until everyone is convinced that it ought to be done and has been convinced for so long that it is now time to do something else".
I hope that so far as concerns the UN we can at least agree a series of severely practical measures which will make that extraordinary institution work perhaps more efficiently and better in the future than it has in the past. It is, as I said a little earlier, an extraordinary institution in which to work. For all its faults—it has faults; no one who has worked in it could deny that—there was a feeling (at least, I felt it and I believe that most people who have been involved in it do) that at last an attempt was being made to try to organise the affairs of this planet on a more rational basis in the future than they have been organised in the past.
Britain is in a privileged position to help that process. I hope that we shall do so in the next 50 years.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for tabling his Motion on the UN at such an opportune time, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I too was delighted that Lord Gladwyn could he with us for the debate. He has written me a note regretting that he could not remain until the end, which I pass on to your Lordships. Today we have heard many helpful and thoughtful speeches which will help us in divining the way forward. Perhaps I may join also with other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, a speedy return to health. We are sad that he is not with us today since he often speaks on these matters.

1279
It is clear from my mailbag and the questions that have been asked in the debate that there is great interest in and support for the United Nations in this its 50th anniversary year. But there are worries too, and they have been voiced clearly. Although many of the letters are critical of various aspects of the organisation, it is gratifying that the overwhelming view is that the UN, whatever its faults, should not be abandoned; it should be developed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, said.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, including the noble Lord, Lord Richard, just now, the principles enshrined in the UN Charter remain as good a basis for a peaceful, just and prosperous world today as they did in 1945, and the UN is still the organisation that offers the best hope of progress towards those goals. Another widely held view, which the Government share—as have many of your Lordships in the debate—is that there is a pressing need to enhance and develop the capacities of the UN. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to that when he talked about preventive diplomacy. I shall come to the matter in more detail in a moment.
While no thinking politician would deny that the UN has failings, we should put those failings, such as they are, into context. Throughout the Cold War, as a number of noble Lords said, the UN was severely inhibited in carrying out some of its key tasks. The East-West confrontation meant that the Security Council rarely operated by consensus. It was largely unable to play the role envisaged for it in the Charter, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, when he reminded us of the period before 1979 when there was discussion of Charter reform. Once we got down to discussing it, we found how much we believed the original Charter should remain.
It was the lack of democracy, above all, which hindered the role that the UN could play during those years in protecting human rights. But even then, as is well known, the UN system scored some notable achievements. We should not cast them off without recognition. The WHO waged a successful campaign to eradicate smallpox across the globe. The UNHCR coped with the protection of countless refugees and displaced persons. In those days, while the Security Council was not innovative, crises were contained, if not resolved.
In Cyprus, as my noble friend Lord Vivian said, UNFICYP has kept the peace for 28 years. I shall not be drawn into the wider question of Cyprus's application for European Union membership, but I believe that for a very long time bloodshed has been prevented by the presence of the UNFICYP forces. The UN has produced a number of conventions of fundamental importance to us today; for example, on human rights—a subject mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. I shall return to that subject later if I have time.
But what happened with the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War is that we had a time of what I might call great expectations which, sadly, in the years immediately following the Gulf War, have proved to be
1280
unrealistic hopes, as the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, said.
The belief has grown up that the UN could and would solve most of the world's problems. It soon became apparent that the new shape of the world in fact presented the organisation with challenges on a scale that it had never before encountered. The figures, as many noble Lords said, speak for themselves. The UN has launched as many peace-keeping operations since 1989 as it did in the whole of the first 40 years of its existence. In 1991, 12,000 blue helmets and blue berets were deployed; in 1993, nearly 100,000. Today, 56,000 remain in the field.
The very fact that in the past four years alone I have visited deployments in seven countries says something about the scale of the ongoing responsibilities. I have visited several of them, such as UNPROFOR in Bosnia, many times. Peace-keeping deployments are invariably only one part of the UN's response to complex crises since they engage many of its agencies, especially to help with refugees and displaced persons; to deliver emergency aid; and to help rebuild shattered economies and societies. Thus the exponential increase in demand for the UN's services has inevitably exposed the organisation's weaknesses. But it has also spurred the UN and its members to take a hard look at what is wrong; where the barriers are; and how we can overcome the problems.
In reviewing its own structures and applying good management and administrative practice where it is relevant, the UN is not a static institution. It knows that it must move with and adapt to the times. It is doing so. We have seen an astonishing burst of life on the peace-keeping side, as has been evident from noble Lords' speeches.
How the UN has managed to cope with the impact of having nearly 100,000 men on the ground at one time in various operations around the world, even as the process of adaptation and restructuring at headquarters was under way, deserves praise rather than criticism. Her Majesty's Government have contributed strongly to the debate on reform with constructive proposals and ideas, not least in the reply to the Agenda for Peace of July 1993. Many of our ideas have been adopted.
The British input has been reflected in decisions of the Security Council; for example, on the criteria for launching new operations and, at the practical level, of a mechanism for consultation on group commitments. We propose to continue a constructive and interactive dialogue, designed to build on best practice rather than merely to criticise the weaknesses and the problems.
In the UN agencies, the reform process is ongoing, and we intend to see that it is maintained as it is extremely important that those agencies are enabled to cope with the new challenges they face. We are working with other major donors to review progress on financial and administrative questions throughout the system. We are trying to find the best way of applying the best practice, or as good practice as we can possibly deliver. It is particularly important that member governments of the UN themselves follow through their own policies in a coherent manner from UN agency to agency. Some

1281
are better than others but we need "to keep at it". That has been the message from this debate and from every non-governmental organisation with which I have discussed the way to advance progress in the UN.
Finance and management are major issues at the United Nations. The establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services is a major step forward. There is a new dynamism from the recently appointed Under-Secretary General for Administration and Management. We hope that the Secretary General will once again give the lead in rationalising jobs and bureaucracy at headquarters, which has not changed a great deal over the years. Although it appears to have increased and become more difficult to cope with, it probably is no different from the time when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was our ambassador there.
As regards finance, assessed contributions to the UN and peace-keeping budgets are legal obligations and the key principle must be that member states should pay their contributions not only in full but also on time. We recognise the perception in Congress, referred to tonight, that the United States is bearing an unfair burden. But relative to its economic weight that is hardly the case. Major friends and allies of the United States also contribute in support of Security Council resolutions as well as pay their assessed contributions in full and on time.
However, that US perception is regularly causing a huge cashflow problem for the United Nations. That is why the United Kingdom has been active in making constructive proposals to review the UN's scale of assessments on a transparent and balanced basis. We hope that the membership will build on those ideas, looking forward to the next General Assembly. Your Lordships' comments are most helpful in that regard because the problem must be tackled. Otherwise, there will not be the ability to respond to and back financially our response to real crises when they come up unexpectedly.
Many questions were asked tonight and I shall write to noble Lords if I do not have a chance to refer to them. Perhaps I may comment on the Security Council enlargement, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Of course we recognise the need for expansion to make the council more representative. But it must also be effective and therefore that expansion should be limited. At this stage, the most important goal is not to let the enlargement discussions, which are currently underway in New York in a General Assembly working group, become bogged down. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last September that the United Nations 50th anniversary should be a milestone in the debate and that that problem should not be a millstone round our necks. The wrangling, which might go on for several years, would be progressively debilitating for the council.
I viewed with surprise the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that there might be a merging of the United Kingdom and French seats. I do not know whether the noble Lord has tested that thought in Paris but I can imagine that it would not gain much favour there. For that reason, my noble
1282
friend, Lord Finsberg said that he hoped we would have no truck with it. We are a valuable member of the United Nations and uniquely of other bodies too, such as the Commonwealth. It is through the Commonwealth that a great deal of our other work goes on in trying to prevent problems. Therefore, we should certainly remain in the Security Council and I am certain that the French will say the same, However, we believe that certain states, by virtue of their global interests and contribution to world peace and security, may be invited to accept the responsibilities of permanent membership in the future. That is why we have stated our support for both German and Japanese permanent membership.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked about the veto. We would not wish to see any change in the current veto provisions. Although the veto is now rarely used its very existence encourages agreement.
Perhaps I may turn to peace-keeping, in which we are playing a leading role in supporting United Nations efforts. We have led the way in pressing for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to be strengthened so it can more efficiently plan, launch and manage peace-keeping operations. We have backed that up with constructive ideas and the provision of expert personnel on secondment to the UN secretariat. The UN remains the pre-eminent international authority for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has unique world-wide legitimacy but it depends crucially on the determination of member states to make it function properly and on their willingness to make available the necessary resources, in particular their troop commitments.
We and other Europeans fully pay our contributions to peace-keeping but Britain is contributing more troops to UN operations than any other nation except France. British blue berets are performing outstandingly in Bosnia. They are on the green line in Cyprus and were in Rwanda carrying out a phenomenal task, probably far more than their remit would have envisaged, and doing it willingly to save lives and to bring peace.
Our objective must be to ensure that the UN, working with regional organisations, is able to respond quickly to the need for peacekeepers where they are able to underpin a political process. We are helping the UN to improve its logistic support for operations and to develop a common UN doctrine for peace-keeping. Provided that the parties respect the Lusaka Protocol, we have agreed to provide a British logistic battalion for three months in order to get the UN operation in Angola off to a good start. British logistics expertise is highly prized in such operations. As honorary colonel of the Royal Logistic Corps, I am proud that that is so.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to standing forces. Our view is that it is much better to enhance the UN's rapid reaction capability by making the standby force planning initiative work more effectively. We have responded to the Secretary General, setting out the forces which we would be prepared in principle to make available on a case-by-case basis and are following that up with the UN secretariat. Through our initiative on peace-keeping in Africa, which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary launched at the General

1283
Assembly, we are encouraging other partners to work with African countries to enhance their capacity to deploy their troops more rapidly and effectively. That is one of the practical measures requested by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
The standing force, mentioned by many noble Lords, is not a new idea but it is not practicable. It is extremely difficult in terms of command and control and we are much better in developing a capability, particularly in Africa with African forces. Many of them have been trained by British forces and they can work together. We are looking monthly at the whole development of the African peace-keeping initiative with the OAU, the UN and the African countries which are willing to contribute.
My noble friend Lord Vivian talked about the peacekeeping college. It is generally accepted that training should remain a national responsibility, even if we, with other nations, help with the training. Therefore, the idea of having specific training in one place for all nations does not gain great favour. We will continue to make available places at the Royal College of Defence Studies and the staff colleges and we shall continue to help many nations with training at their request.
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said about the way in which we should try to bring together the capability of the military forces and humanitarian organisations. We are learning a lot in practical terms in our deployments not only in Bosnia and Rwanda but also in other places around the world.
I noted very carefully the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about prevention being cheaper than cure. He knows that I agree with him. Of course, one way in which we hope that we can help prevention is by reducing the quantity of arms circulating throughout the world. That is why the Prime Minister advocated back in 1991, at the European Council, the UN register of conventional arms. We strongly support it because it brings greater transparency into the arms trade. It will help to identify excessive accumulations of weapons at an early stage, so adding to the preventive knowledge that we have and on which we can act. So far, the register has had a successful start. About 90 states have submitted returns which cover the vast majority of arms transfers. Copies of our own returns are in the Library. We shall continue to encourage wider participation and we shall certainly do our best to make sure that that aspect of prevention works as well as possible.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked a specific question about tactical nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that those weapons are leaving the former Soviet Union. Of course, under the non-proliferation treaty, Russia is obliged not to transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapon states. There is no evidence that that obligation has been breached.
My noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Finsberg spoke about terrorism. I am sure that your Lordships know of the statement made by Security Council members at the summit in 1992 that the council was concerned to address problems of international
1284
terrorism. There is absolutely no doubt that we must be careful about international terrorism and continue to work in that field.
Other issues have been raised this evening, one of which is global governance. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the work of the commission on global governance. The recently published report Our Global Neighbourhood contains a number of thought-provoking ideas. It identifies the key dilemmas facing the international community. I fear that we shall have to do a lot more work to come up with all the solutions to those dilemmas. Nevertheless, it is very good on analysis.
One way in which to make the ideas work is to continue with the progress of reform of the economic and social council of the UN. Making the economic and social council work better is very much part of our ongoing concern. We are pursuing reforms there. That spreads out into the various agencies—for example, UNDP and UNICEF, where progress is already being seen. But there are other areas where there is resistance to change. The economic and social council will have to push and push quite hard to achieve that change.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, spoke about his idea of the commission. There are already three commission reports on the UN. I am not sure whether a further commission would be helpful. We have certainly had misgivings about the proposals to establish a new working group to look at UN reform in the round because we are making better progress by taking the various agencies and scrutinising their processes and trying to make sure they do not overlap. Therefore, it may be that that idea will not gain a lot of credence. We are seeking to cut out duplication of work and there are groups already doing well looking at Security Council enlargement and financial reform.
On finance, perhaps I may briefly repeat that the deepening cash flow crisis must be tackled. Any influence which your Lordships may have with US members of Congress to talk about the reality of that will be most welcome. We are doing what we can now that the Administration in Washington have made clear their opposition to proposals to limit further funding. We have pointed out that as a whole the European Union is already paying more towards United Nations peace-keeping than the United States. Therefore, the only sustainable way forward will be through a negotiated deal, of which I spoke earlier.
There are many development institutions in the United Nations. We support them all in various ways. But the UNHCR has borne an enormous load in recent years. We have been very glad to support Mrs. Ogata to the hilt. I shall meet her again on Friday and I hope to agree with her what we can do further to help UNHCR in its work.
I have one piece of good news for your Lordships this evening. Despite the enormous pressure on resources, we have managed to maintain our core contribution of £8.5 million to UNICEF in 1995–96. Of course, that will be added to by supplementary funding. Whether it will reach the £23 million which we have managed to pay so far in 1994–95, I cannot say. This financial year has not yet finished and some emergency appeals are still

1285
under consideration. We believe that UNICEF is doing a first class job and we intend to continue to support it as much as possible.
There are concerns about management efficiency and accountability but the management review of UNICEF indicates that it is going in the right direction. We should give as much help as we possibly can to that organisation.
I turn now to the very difficult subject of UNESCO. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon raised that subject, as did many other noble Lords. The fact that we are able to maintain the UNICEF core contribution at only the same level as last year is an indication of the financial pressure we face. Therefore, I must say to what I know will be a disappointed House that I cannot announce this evening a return to UNESCO but we are keeping the question under close review. We must take into account existing financial pressures and the other priority demands for resources as well as the progress which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon rightly indicated has been made on reform.
Many other questions were raised in the debate. I do not wish to detain your Lordships but I wish to say a few words about the new world order about which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me. We are extremely conscious that questions of security are bound up inextricably with questions of human rights, development and justice. Failure in any of those fields leads to deterioration in security, and instability. All our interests lie in a stable world and, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, said, we must work in the field of human rights and weigh up the costs and benefits of them because they are, as he put it, linked to security and the maintenance of that security.
We wish to make this 50th anniversary of the UN a real celebration. We shall shortly announce the details of that. We are most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon for the work he is doing with the United Nations Association to make sure that we celebrate well the stage that we have reached.
The United Nations can only ever be as effective as member states are prepared to make it. I note the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, about one of my colleagues in the other place. I shall take up that matter. I have covered many, but not all, of the areas in which we have been active in enhancing the capabilities of the UN but it is financially more than in any other respect that there is an urgent need for all members to pay their full dues to the organisation and on time. Some UN problems are far from resolution but they are now being addressed. Britain will continue to play a leading role in the process of making the organisation more capable of fulfilling the great tasks given to it at its foundation. It is as much in our interests as it is in the interests of the rest of the world that that goal is achieved.
We have a vision. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, hinted, that vision corresponds exactly with the remarks made by my noble and teamed friend Lord Howe of Aberavon in his forthright speech. We should not give up and we should not despair. We should not denounce the UN. It is easy to knock any organisation. There will
1286
always be variable standards. But we have seen progress made in a very short space of time. That shows us that with confidence and hard work, much can be achieved. We intend to help the United Nations to so achieve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had an interesting and constructive debate today. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. Perhaps I may say that I am particularly appreciative of the speeches made, first, by my noble friend Lord Richard whose speech reflected his great experience as ambassador in New York; and, secondly, by the noble Baroness whose commitment and integrity is respected by all of us. If I may say so, the Minister made a most helpful and impressive speech this evening.
If we take the long view, we have to agree that nothing in the political scene worldwide is more important than the success of the United Nations and its agencies. All of us must take a greater interest in the work and efforts of the United Nations. As I said earlier, this House has a first-class Select Committee to deal with European Union affairs. Perhaps we should now think of a similar committee on United Nations affairs. However, that is a matter for future consideration. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

International Investment in UK Science: Select Committee Report
7.21 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on International Investment in UK Science (Fourth Report, HL Paper 36).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how much I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. If one were to believe some of the comments of politicians, industrialists, scientists and journalists which all too often appear in the public and scientific press, one could not help feeling depressed about some aspects of British science and perhaps, above all, about British science and development.
There are still too many doom and gloom merchants about who appear to have been nurtured on a literary diet of Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy. How pleasant it is, therefore, to be able to report a splendid success story. The investigation carried out by Sub-Committee I of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, a study which I was privileged to chair over a period of many months, has clearly shown that the United Kingdom continues to be a favoured recipient of international investment in science. Chairing that sub-committee was a most illuminating and enjoyable experience and I confess that, from it, I learnt a very great deal of which I was previously unaware. That

1287
success story is one little recognised, I believe, by all too many scientists, industrialists and, indeed, politicians. But it is one which deserves to be trumpeted abroad.
At this relatively late hour I can do little more than to highlight some of our principal findings and recommendations, while, at the same time, sounding a few salutary warnings about action which must be taken if the present reasonably happy situation is to continue. However, before doing so, I should like to pay an especially warm tribute to our Clerk, Andrew Makower, for his energy and drafting skills, to the many individuals and organisations giving evidence, both written and oral, to us, and to our specialist advisers, Dr. Peter Collins of the Royal Society and Dr. Paul Whittingham.
So why do I say that the report paints a major success story? The facts are clear. In 1992–93, international investment in UK science brought in £1.1 billion in industrial R&D funded from overseas, plus £135 million to the universities in research grants and contracts, and at least a further £129 million in fees from overseas science and technology research students (postgraduates £59 million, undergraduates £70 million). Hence, those aspects of science and technology represent invisible exports worth about £1.4 billion a year. Such a figure must be compared with the £12 billion spent annually on all forms of R&D in the UK. Some universities and their departments depend heavily on income from overseas contracts and student fees, and in some fields UK industrial research is almost wholly dependent on the activities of companies of overseas origin. One has only to mention the way in which such investment has, indeed, helped to revive our once ailing car industry.
In addition to money, international involvement makes an incalculable intellectual contribution, as our report says, to keeping the UK in the front rank of scientific nations and gives British scientists a network of contacts around the world. As one of our witnesses said:
"Knowledge is international and universal research must be global. That is the general atmosphere in which we like to work".
Some, of course, have said that, by locating R&D facilities in the UK, by making research contracts with British universities and by placing sponsored professors and research students from overseas in leading departments in this country, foreign countries and companies are engaging in the overseas exploitation of UK brains. One of our witnesses went so far as to say that having a research postgraduate student was rather like having a "human hoover" going round one's department. Those are concerns which we firmly reject, concluding that while UK science is entitled to receive a fair price for research carried out and a fair return on its intellectual property, there is no place for scientific protectionism. The magnitude of the UK's achievement in the field can be assessed from the fact that 40 per cent. of all United States overseas investment in science and 42 per cent. of all such investment from Japan comes to the UK, while this country in the European Union is also by far the largest recipient of research grants and contracts from the EU's science budget.
1288
When we examined the factors responsible for such investment, we discovered that the position of English as an international language is important, but the single factor above all most responsible was clearly shown to be the sheer excellence and capacity for innovation of British science. Interestingly, the cultural environment of the UK is another significant factor, mentioned particularly by Japanese witnesses some of whom said rather charmingly, "We laugh at the same jokes".
In making his apologies which he asked me to pass on to the House, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, wished me to draw particular attention to the letter that we received from the Counsellor for Science and Technology of the British Embassy in Tokyo who wrote to me on 24th January. He commended our report and said:
"There is no doubt [from my experience in this country] that the success in attracting Japanese investment stems from the UK's high reputation in basic research. The report correctly recognises that competition from Europe and north America is increasing considerably and it is essential, if we are retain our attractiveness to foreign companies, that British science remains at the top of the league".
The investment which we identified covers a very wide field of science. Not surprisingly, the British pharmaceutical industry, which I once referred to in a debate in your Lordships' House as being the jewel in Britain's industrial crown, has been one of the leading recipients of such investment. Indeed, as the Secretary of State for Health, in launching "Prescribe UK" (a joint government/industry campaign designed to encourage pharmaceutical and biotechnological inward investment in this country) pointed out last December, about £10 billion has been spent in the UK over the past decade on pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical research and development—that is about 8 per cent. of the entire international pharmaceutical industry's global research and development budget. One-third of all European biotechnology companies are located in the UK, and this country is one of the top four exporters of modern medicines in the world, accounting for around 12 per cent. of international pharmaceutical trade.
It is also notable that in a recent survey by the Best in Britain Bureau, 80 per cent. of overseas investors in the UK said that their UK operations were performing better than, or comparable with, their other overseas operations. There are, of course, many other examples which I could mention, but I have highlighted pharmaceuticals as one of the leading players in the field. It is also encouraging to see that investment of varying types and in varying amounts has come to a large number of different institutions in this country. In the universities, not surprisingly, Oxbridge, Imperial and University Colleges and the other London colleges situated in the so-called golden triangle have in some respects been pre-eminent. But the committee was interested to note for example—these are only a few examples—that the Universities of Edinburgh, Southampton and Glasgow have also done well, while in relation to European investment, my former University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne came third in the relevant league table in 1992–93 after Cambridge and London.
But while I have highlighted much encouraging evidence, plainly this country must not rest on its laurels as there is growing competition from many other nations. We noted that in the Far East the so-called Asian tigers are cultivating their science bases and are attracting inward investment in science which might have come here. And there are several other concerns on the horizon. I and my colleagues on the sub-committee were much encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his recent statement relating to the funding of UK science that this will be increased modestly in the coming year, though naturally, as always, those speaking for science across a wide field would have wished to have more, which they could have used most effectively in expanding and developing the UK's science base.
My committee was in no doubt that as soon as circumstances allow, substantial additional funding for the science base is crucial, both in the universities and in the research councils, if Britain is to remain pm-eminent. The recent decision to cut university funding by 1.5 per cent. is somewhat alarming. But in particular there are growing concerns over the question as to whether the facilities and equipment now available in scientific laboratories in UK universities are keeping pace with those of our overseas competitors, even in the developing nations of the Pacific Rim.
Speaking in another capacity, as the chairman of the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education, we drew attention in our report Learning to Succeed, published in November 1993, to the serious current imbalance in the funding of various educational sectors in the United Kingdom, pointing to the fact that, because of the generous—in international terms—maintenance grants awarded to students in higher education which this country has provided over many years, our expenditure per capita on the higher education sector is far higher than that of most of our major industrial competitors.
In that report we made detailed suggestions about how this imbalance could be corrected by moving towards a greater dependence on private funding for higher education, not through the present, I fear, unsatisfactory student loan system, but by an alternative method of providing loans repayable through the tax system over a prolonged period. I do not have time to go into detail today, but it is clear to me and to my colleagues on the commission that gradual replacement of student maintenance grants, and a contribution to fees, by some such system would free additional funds to enrich the science base, to enhance the quality of facilities and equipment in science departments of our universities, and to broaden access to higher and further education in line with developments now occurring in competitor countries.
We are also satisfied that the Office of Science and Technology should be urged to extend the Government's bilateral relationships with Japan to other countries around the Pacific and should encourage academic/industrial research consortia linking the UK and the Far East. There are indeed encouraging signs that this is beginning to happen. The Government should also continue to seek suitable opportunities to host
1290
international scientific facilities and should at least maintain their funding for the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the ODA and the British Council in supporting and facilitating travel overseas by British scientists. It is crucially important that these and other measures be taken to support the efforts of the universities to maintain this country's present position as the European destination of first choice for travelling students from key countries in the Far East.
There has been something of a decline in the past two years in overseas student numbers in science, and some other ominous trends give cause for concern. It is also clear that the interests of the science base and of the British taxpayer must be safeguarded by full costing, prudent pricing and adequate international property rights and licensing arrangements; we welcome evidence that British universities are becoming increasingly competent in these matters. While we have firmly rejected any suggestion of scientific protectionism, we believe that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals should consider promulgating recommendations relating to the maintenance, and indeed improvement of the quality of experience available to postgraduate students in science, and should also consider drawing up guidance for firms, whether foreign or domestic, and for university departments on the issue of handling sensitive know-how and information being derived from a contract or from scientific collaboration. It follows that the CVCP, in consultation with the Treasury, should devise a standard formula for costing and pricing research contracted from a university by a government department and a means of enforcing it.
And our report embraces a number of vitally important messages for British industry. With a few notable exceptions, we were told that UK companies when investing in British science seek a rapid return, whereas overseas companies take a much longer-term view, accepting that industrial exploitation of scientific discoveries may not be possible for 10 years or even more. As I have often said, in medicine, today's discovery in basic laboratory science brings tomorrow's practical development in patient care. We urge British industry to abandon short-termism and to be much more farsighted in its approach.
Finally, we believe that the Government should keep the regulation of biotechnology and of other scientific activities under review as science progresses and should ensure that if in any respect the UK/EU regime is stricter than that in any other major competitor country, this can either be modified or at least be fully and explicitly justified. We stress that the Government must surely continue to treat all companies conducting R&D in the UK as UK enterprises for purposes of access to public R&D support, and that the Inland Revenue must be particularly careful in devising and administering company taxation so that when conducting its current industrial finances initiative it does not inadvertently create incentives to place R&D outside this country. We also believe that the Government should consider offering pump-priming funding for developments aimed

1291
at attracting international investment in science which could be awarded by competition among university departments on the basis of a business case.
Finally, may I urge all of those with an interest in this topic of crucial importance to the future of Britain's scientific and industrial development to study our report with care, and in particular the appendices which contain much invaluable statistical information. I believe there are many lessons to be learned from these figures which will prove helpful in the future. UK plc is doing well in international investment in science, but there is much still to be done if we are to maintain and even, we hope, to improve that position. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on International Investment in UK Science (Fourth Report, HL Paper 36).—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, the report opens an interesting window of reflection on the value of internationalism in many aspects of our national life—academic, scientific and, crucially, industrial. I should like to pay particular tribute to the skilled chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which enabled our committee to focus so finely on particular aspects of great importance to the national economy. As he said, the report beam close reading in that regard.
There is no doubt that in the totality of international investment in R&D the UK has a generous market share. International and multinational companies choose to put the "R" in particular into the United Kingdom. The resulting benefits to the UK are in part thrown into relief by the efforts of other countries, such as Spain, which are attempting to develop a science base and match our achievements in attracting international investment. That is clearly perceived by other nations less fortunate than we as a key market advantage. I fear that sometimes we take some of the benefits that we enjoy too much for granted.
Of course, at the most simple, and most important, level a great deal of money is attracted into the UK in invisible investment through investment in R&D. Our committee found that something like £2 billion comes into the United Kingdom through such R&D. That is a sizeable proportion of our total invisibles and therefore very important.
More than that, the investment in R&D sustains our own science base. Most of all, it sustains the skilled research community—the highly skilled men and women who conduct the research and who might otherwise become part of the brain drain and be attracted to work outside the UK. They are a very important resource for the country and international investment helps to keep more of them here and to keep our science base alive as part of our national wealth.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, our committee rejected entirely the negative aspects of fear which some people expressed that these Japanese "Hoovers" might somehow steal the nation's silver and take our best ideas away with them. I am convinced, as was the committee,
1292
that we gain as much as we lose. Of course there will be international exchange, but in giving some of the silver of our ideas we gain in return the silver of other countries' ideas, expertise and skills. That must be good for the United Kingdom. The importance overall to our industrial and academic science base is impossible to over-estimate.
It is worth pausing for a moment on the question which the report raises about why this investment comes our way. Certainly language plays a part, but nowadays there are many other countries with high-powered investment in science where English is also spoken. There is no particular reason inherently why we should attract investment purely on the basis of our English language.
I believe, as we say in the report, that above all else it is the strength of our human base which attracts international investors. It is a tribute to the universities of this country that they have consistently produced some of the most skilled and creative scientific researchers in the world. Time and again in the evidence given to the committee the quality of our human science base was mentioned as a reason for international investment. I believe that it is still true that in this country we have more Nobel prize-winners per head of population than any other country in the world. That is a national resource which we would do very ill to throw away. It is not easy to maintain that resource. The universities of this country need the support and understanding of this country in their attempts to maintain that very high quality output.
It is worth reflecting for a moment that while the narrowness of our education in the sixth form and undergraduate years is criticised, often with good arguments, nevertheless that undoubtedly plays a part in producing this highly skilled postgraduate and post-doctoral research force. Before we throw out the baby with the bath water and rush for a broader curriculum perhaps we need to analyse more closely what it is that produces our high quality scientists and researchers and make sure that that is retained in any revision of the curriculum in the upper years of the secondary schools.
I commend particularly to your Lordships the section in the report which deals with what we have called, on the basis of the comments of one of our witnesses, the strategic research alliances which universities in this country have formed with multinational and overseas companies in research and development. Overall, that effort in strategic research alliances amounts to an investment of the order of 150 million dollars in British universities by overseas companies. It is an extremely important aspect of our British life that we are able to achieve that. Again, it is the quality of our research which interests international companies. It is an arrangement which builds up long-term relationships which are important to our own industrialists wishing to trade abroad. The loyalty, friendship and knowledge of British skills which is built up through the strategic research alliances carries through into all aspects of trade.
There is another and equally important form of inward investment which we deal with in the report. That is the inward flow of overseas students to British universities.

1293
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already mentioned our recommendation 5.7, but I wish to dwell on it for a moment. We ask that the Government should support the efforts of the universities to maintain this country's position as the European destination of first choice for students travelling from key countries in the Far East.
Only last week—it seems longer than that, but it was only three days ago—I returned from the British cultural fair in Taiwan. In the last five years our market share has grown from only 34 Taiwanese students coming to the UK to study to over 6,000 this year. Next year, in terms of offers of places, the figure is closer to 8,000. That is phenomenal growth in that market in one of the pearls of the Pacific. Predominantly, those overseas students study science and technology.
That is tremendously symbolic and an outward and visible sign of the relationship between this country and Taiwan, in trade as well as in cultural and educational matters. The Taiwanese themselves recognise that. Almost every industrialist and business person to whom I spoke in Taiwan commented on the growth in numbers and said that this was re-establishing their strong links with the United Kingdom. It is one way in which we are able to trade and do business together.
I should declare an interest here as I chair the Department of Trade and Industry's export group for the education and training sector, and say without apology that it is my personal ambition to see the United Kingdom double our share of the global market in overseas students. We simply cannot afford to lose out in that race. I am convinced that the flow of students towards a particular country is part and parcel of the way in which trade and industry are built up. We have been losing out in the international global student market for the past 30 years. We might expect to lose out to large countries such as the United States, with its power and extensive higher education system, but we are now falling behind both France and Germany. That seems to me to be throwing away our natural linguistic advantage in so many countries.
In Kuala Lumpur a few months ago I walked past a large new German institute of technology which attracted students from all over that part of South East Asia. There was a large advertisement across the front saying: "All courses taught in English". That was a German institute but, recognising that English is the international language of science, it was prepared to do all its teaching in English. I should like to see a British institute there attracting even larger numbers of students. It is worth working hard towards that because when those young students study science and technology, they build lifelong friendships and loyalties. They become senior industrialists, politicians or senior civil servants in their own countries. Every industrialist or business person states that there is all the difference in the world when trying to seal a business deal overseas if the person behind the desk or across the table says, "Of course, I received my higher education in the United Kingdom". You know that you are half-way home.
The will is there. We should not diminish the success story. We are very successful in attracting inward investment both in science and in students. I wish to see
1294
us become even more successful because I believe that in that area of our national activity the goals and the prizes to be won are very great indeed.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address this House for the first time. This debate is particularly relevant as I have for some 35 years worked in British industry as a professional engineer rather than a manager. I have had the privilege and the pleasure of working, among others, for two of the top United Kingdom technological companies—IBM (UK) Ltd. and Rolls-Royce plc; the latter firm from which I have recently retired. That was just as well because I do not think that the Rolls-Royce manager's handbook covered the situation of one of their employees being a Member of this House!
As an electrical engineer, I have been involved in the practical application of computers to industrial and engineering applications for some 25 years. During this time I have seen enormous increases in the capability and performance of computers, and quite remarkable reductions in their real costs. I hope to be able to apply the knowledge acquired over that period for the benefit of this House.
I think that it is appropriate that the debate takes place, as announced by Mr. Waldegrave in the other place, during National Science Week. In spite of the contractions that have taken place over the past few years in the UK manufacturing industry, it remains essential that we attract young people into careers in science and technology, as the future of our country is dependent on those industries and their competitiveness. Some people seem to think that such careers are dull and uninteresting, but I have always found it very satisfying when, after perhaps much hard work, what one has designed actually begins to take shape and becomes what one intended, even though much further development work may be required. Obviously most projects are a team effort, but that does not detract from this good feeling.
However, all these projects take place against a background of investment into fundamental research, followed by a product development cycle which is becoming increasingly shortened due to market forces. The subsequent support of the product in the field may continue for many years. In the aerospace industry the total product cycle time may thus cover some 50 years from the initial design concept until the last aircraft is retired.
In the UK, the aerospace industry has achieved its position with development budgets considerably smaller than those of its American competitors. As private companies, the industry has to be profitable and is not always competing on a level playing field.
Within the European Union, certain loss-making competitors are substantially supported by their governments. Those companies are in partnership with US companies which are also direct competitors of companies in this country. Hence, those companies are indirectly funded from within the European Union.

1295
Further, there are US government-funded initiatives such as the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology programme, which was commenced in 1988 and is due for completion in 2005. This programme aims to give quite startling improvements in engine performance. The results of this programme are equally applicable to both military and civil aircraft. Three US agencies and seven US aero-engine companies are participants in that initiative.
The UK aerospace firms must invest in equivalent projects—once one falls behind in this technological race one can never catch up. Hence, Government support for both basic and generic research is essential in addition to company funded research. Obviously a beneficial tax regime affects the choice of location where such company funded research is carried out in either a university or industrial environment.
Rolls-Royce, for instance, works with some 14 United Kingdom universities on a broad range of projects including aerodynamic and aerothermal engineering, composite materials, production methodologies and advanced computing techniques. Some of the past research and development has been funded by government launch aid for specific engine projects, and that launch aid is now being repaid, while continuing to fund current research and development. One major project has been located in Canada due to its advantageous tax regime. That feature was brought out in evidence to the Select Committee.
One of the features of the aerospace industry, both from the airframe and engine manufacturers' point of view, is the highly interactive nature of the various collaborative alliances which exist between the participating organisations on both a national and international scale. A company may collaborate with an organisation on one project, and yet be in direct competition on another. This point was made in evidence to the committee concerning the difficulties of maintaining commercial confidentiality over such projects with many diverse partners spread throughout the world.
Increasingly, we shall see greater international integration and co-operation on high technology projects where a single organisation cannot now afford the development costs. That is applicable both to American and English companies. Many companies require offset deals as part of their purchase of such requirements and our financial regimes for research and development must take that into account.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and a pleasure to hear that thoughtful and valuable maiden speech. He is a distinguished and experienced engineer—a rare species in your Lordships' House—and he has demonstrated tonight what a valuable contribution he will make in future, especially in matters of interest to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology.
1296
The main conclusion of the Select Committee whose report has been so clearly presented by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was unequivocal. International investment in science is a good thing. If there were any fears about foreign scientists on British soil, or British science being planted on foreign soil, none was found in the evidence given to the committee. All agreed that science is, and always has been, one of the most international of human activities.
Indeed, it is questionable whether there is any such thing as the UK science which is referred to in the title of the report. There are of course British scientists—UK scientists—as there are German and Japanese scientists. But there is no such thing as a British science which is different in any fundamental way from the science of other countries.
From time to time the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Europeans and the Americans—roughly in that order—have excelled in science; but it has always been one science shared by all. Likewise, few discoveries can be credited to a single person or even a single nation. Science advances on a broad front which is manned by scientists across the world.
Of course, outside the international fellowship of science, there is sometimes some suspicion of foreigners. If I may stray for a moment, it is well known how a committee of the Royal Society, which included Benjamin Franklin, was set up to consider the best shape for lightning conductors. It concluded that they should be pointed. That view was opposed by George III because Franklin was not only a foreigner, but a supporter of the,
"revolutionary factions across the seas"
in France and America. King George therefore decreed that the lightning conductors should be fitted with knobs, and he had them fitted to the conductors on his palace. The president of the Royal Society disagreed and was, of course, removed from office at the next election. The matter was never really settled and we await the ultimatum from Brussels as to whether British lightning conductors should have knobs on.
The Select Committee naturally paid attention to the profit and loss account of foreign investment in British science. As we have already heard, its report shows that our income from that investment is considerable—£1.4 billion annually. Most of that goes to fund industrial R&D; but in 1992 at least £260 million went to British universities, about half of it to fund university research and the other half as fees from overseas science and technology students. That is a very valuable contribution indeed.
My own research was supported for many years by the British research councils, but partly because of the present drift towards short-term, so-called wealth creating, activities, my research group at Imperial College would not survive today without international investment. That investment comes partly from Europe and partly—indeed, the largest part in my case—from Japan. Nothing but good comes of that. It is good for our overseas colleagues; it is equally good for us; and it is good for the advancement of science itself.

1297
There are two further points that I wish to make very briefly tonight. The witnesses to the committee, when asked how international investment begins and how it could be increased, emphasised again and again the importance of personal contacts and friendships between scientists working in the same field. Some of us serve as advisers and members on the overseas research councils themselves. The liaison work of the Royal Society and similar institutions, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and which is mostly funded by the Government, is absolutely vital in the matter. Those relationships are usually more effective, less expensive to set in place, and more permanent than official delegations. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made the point as well; and I hope that the Government will give every possible support to the organisations which are encouraging the exchange of ideas and scientists between countries. It is not an expensive undertaking.
The second point, made by a number of witnesses, was that we should not look to such exchanges merely as a means of raising money. When students or research workers return to their own country, they have learnt some of our ways in education and research, and equally we have learnt from them. They are far more likely to be able to collaborate with us in future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, emphasised. That is an important part of the overall balance sheet that we must consider.
The chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals argued that money is not even the most important result of international investment in science. He said:
"The export of educated people, whether they are PhD students or post-doctoral workers, is probably as big, if not a bigger, source of transfer of ideas and knowledge, compared with the commissioned research that might be done".
We are often told of fears that because our science is so good and our development of it so bad, we are in a vulnerable position which arouses fears that our science will be exploited by industry overseas. That attitude again arises from a poor understanding of the international nature of science. The global network is now so complete that a good industrial company will be exploiting discoveries from across the world. British science, good as it is, forms only a small proportion of world science. Industry, likewise, forms a small proportion of world development. If we confine ourselves to British science and technology only, we shall be the big losers.
The economic reasons for doing science ourselves in the United Kingdom and for international collaboration are that a British company cannot exploit any science—foreign or British—without having its own scientists and technologists who are active in the field and members of the international club. That is the best reason of all for international investment, both inward and outward, in science.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for initiating the debate. I congratulate him and the Select Committee for preparing the report on international investment in science. It is significant that the debate was arranged to be held during the annual
1298
National Science Week. I also wish to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, on his maiden speech. Since it is not long since I made mine, I understand his fear and trepidation.
We wholeheartedly support the encouraging findings of the report and its recommendations. In giving that support we wish to make a number of observations, although it is absolutely impossible to cover the complexity of all the points that were raised.
Reading a report of this nature shows how wrong Julian Huxley was a hundred years ago when he stated that:
"the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact".
Rather, in this modern world scientific progress is essential to ensure the health, prosperity and security of nations. Science, therefore, has to move closer to the centre of the global, economic, social and political agenda, working within that global framework but at the same time being able to respond rapidly and vigorously to competition.
Recommendation 5.4 of the report rightly calls for links and bilateral initiatives with the East and the Pacific Rim, referring to the emerging competition from the Far East, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Africa. Without wanting to appear in any way negative, I would like to make some remarks about that competition. I would not wish it in any way to diminish from the success story that the report portrays. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, however, we must not rest on our laurels.
Sir Denis Rooke, former chairman of British Gas, when addressing the conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said:
"The Leaders of Japanese Business tell me that they send their brightest young scientists to Europe, and particularly to the UK, to work here and to pick up the latest scientific developments. It is on that intelligence that they can then build, creating profitable new products … ahead of market perceptions and thus setting the trend for the future … It is precisely in that determined and innovative application of science and related technology that we are lagging behind as a nation".
Another thrust to that criticism was given by the Vice-Chancellor of Edinburgh University, Sir David Smith, when commenting on the short-termism of British industry and comparing attitudes. He said (and I paraphrase): while Japanese companies are prepared to give us large grants, too often British companies will only offer such support when we have something in sight of development. The Japanese appreciate that they must have access to British technology to be where the market is going to be in the next century. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, these criticisms have to be balanced against the expertise that we receive from the presence of students from other countries in our universities. This philosophy is also to be found in the commitment of countries like Japan to national research and development.
Japan and Germany have been improving the quality of publicly funded basic science, as well as experiencing a rapid expansion of business-funded applied research and development for industry. The research and development spending in the UK has, however, declined over the past five years, and government spending on R&D has declined as a proportion of that spending. In 1985–86 the Government provided £5 billion out of the £11 billion that

1299
was spent on R&D. By 1992–93 that was down to £4.3 billion out of £12.2 billion. It is not that all R&D should be government funded, but it is essential that we lift the total national investment in the nation's science base. The reality for too many British scientists is that competition to get financial resources, grants and contracts is part of life in the community of science. They may sometimes appear to be pessimistic, but they have to refer to their own experiences.
A woman worker in cancer research in June Goodfield's account of laboratory life, An Imagined World, points out that,
"everywhere in science the talk is of winners, patents pressure, money, no money".
The report is right to express concern at the projected fall in real terms of the science budget in 1995–96, as heralded in the Forward Look of Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994. That reduction is exacerbated by a fall in research expenditure by the HEFCs in 1994–95. We hope that the Government will note Recommendation No. 5.3 that such expenditure be revised upwards, and the warning that international investment will be attracted to British science only so long as British science remains strong. The Forward Look document also, in referring to the private sector, implies that if the Government withdraw support, then the shortfall will be met by the private sector.
According to OECD figures, in 1980–91 industrial investment in R&D in the UK grew by 9 per cent. That compares with 16 per cent. in the USA, 28 per cent. in France, 20 per cent. in Germany and 56 per cent. in Japan. It is disappointing that only one British company, Glaxo, is in the world's top 50 in spending on R&D, ranking 42 on the world stage.
In 1992 the Central Statistical Office reported, in its review on civil research, that British business expenditure was at an all-time high of £7.8 billion. That is good news, but it is still only just over 1.25 per cent. of GDP, compared to 1.4 per cent. in France; 1.7 per cent. in Germany; 1.8 per cent. in the USA; and 2.1 per cent. in Japan. The Prime Minister was right to make the observation during a visit to Japan in 1993 that,
"we have under-valued science and the application of science".
The Government have the responsibility not only to look at their own level of support but also—as I believe they now do to a greater degree—to recognise their role in encouraging and facilitating international investment. Initiatives such as the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative and the decision that the dual support transfer is to be revised are welcome. But again, the Select Committee is right to say that neither represents an increase in public funding in science.
Similarly, the bilateral initiatives with Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, among others, as outlined on page 27 of the report, are welcome. But these are the very countries with which we are in competition. While it is important that these bilateral initiatives should be built up, note must also be taken of the wise words of the report that it is our hope that by creating constructive relationships now, the destructive effects of future competition may be avoided.
1300
Chapter 2 of the report identifies that 10.9 per cent. of the total annual UK intramural R&D spending is funded from overseas sources, as other noble Lords have said. Eighty per cent of that is received by UK industry; the universities receive 9 per cent.; and the remaining 11 per cent. goes to research councils and to the Government.
It is also interesting to note the level of funding given to industrial science by overseas controlled companies, not necessarily from overseas funds, with the particularly important addition of Japanese investment over the past five years, to add to the already established pattern of American and European investment.
The report poses the important question, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, as to why international companies wish to invest in UK science. While it is clear from the evidence that no generalisations can be made, the main factors appear to be investment research aimed at developing products for a particular market; co-location with production; corporate strategic research which does not rely on location; the willingness of academic researchers to make relationships with industry; and, importantly, the English language as the international language of science. But the most widely quoted reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, reminded us, was sheer excellence and the capacity for innovation. That identifies once again the theme of this report; namely, that that excellence must be maintained and built upon.
Now, very briefly, I should like to mention universities. As the research grant and contract income for all the UK universities and all disciplines has risen, so a bigger proportion has come from overseas—some 12.2 per cent. of that total. That is again a success story. It might be a little disturbing that the number of universities that are seen to benefit from that is still far too small. Hopefully it can be expanded.
Chapter 2 of the report also identifies the other useful source of income for universities; namely, fees from overseas students. The details given graphically show the keenness of the competition, and the increase in students from the Far East is encouraging. The decision by the Government that non-EU students should be charged full cost fees was a particular blow to students from the Commonwealth. On a recent visit to the West Indies it was clear that science and medical students, while acknowledging their preference for British training, were having to go to America, where the fees are cheaper. We hope that full support will be given to the recommendations of the committee on the ways in which universities should respond to the competition from other countries if we are not to lose our share of the student market. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is successful in her aim to double that share.
Finally, I regret that I do not have time to comment on other important aspects that the report discusses, such as the funding of research councils; the disturbing trends on regionalisation of investment; outward investment; the arguments for tax credits for R&D; or the fascinating concept of intellectual property.
To sustain the level of UK international excellence and international outlook of our science base, it is essential that long-term perspectives are taken, by the Government, by industry and by the universities. Dr. Richard Roberts,

1301
one of the two Nobel Prize winners in 1993, described Britain as an "unbelievably fertile ground for ideas". This report, and the implementation of its recommendations, will be crucial elements in developing those ideas and in developing further international collaboration.
8.19 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his committee's report on international investment in UK science. This is an important subject, not only in the context of UK science but also as a contributor to the economic well-being of the country, a point that was made by many noble Lords this evening. I am grateful to the committee for providing government and the wider scientific and industrial community, and this House, with an opportunity to examine and discuss the issues that it raises.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, on his excellent maiden speech. I am tempted to say that it was a Rolls-Royce of a speech. He rightly pointed out how fitting it is that we should be debating a scientific subject during National Science Week.
This is the second National Science Week, following the success of SET7 last year. A huge variety of events are happening around the country, all designed to raise the profile of science and technology. On Saturday, for example, the inhabitants of Canterbury saw a re-enactment, in period costume, of Pascal's 17th century experiment to weigh the atmosphere. In true Gallic style this was done with the help of a 48-foot glass tube filled with red wine.
I hope that some noble Lords will be taking part in the second mega-lab UK experiment by looking under their flower pots and paving stones in search of those unwelcome antipodean guests, the New Zealand and Australian flatworms. The findings reported from all around the country will help us to build up a picture of the extent of this potential threat to our agricultural lands. This was, of course, the subject of a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which shows that your Lordships' House often leads in science matters. Hence, although a House of Lords debate may not be as eye-catching as some other events, it is a signal of the importance of science in our national life. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed today for their continuing and thoughtful attention to this subject.
A number of important points have been raised in the Select Committee's report and in the debate. I shall aim to comment on the main points today. There will, of course, be a full response to the report in the normal way, when the Government have been able to consider the recommendations further.
The report's overall message is that international investment in UK science is first of all significant in volume, and, secondly, to he welcomed and encouraged. The Government welcome the committee's recognition that international investment in UK science is a significant invisible export worth, according to figures released by the Central Statistical Office last Friday, some £1.6 billion in 1993. This is indeed a British success story.
1302
It is a tribute to the dedication and continuing high quality of the UK's scientists and engineers and to their success in promoting and maintaining scientific connections at the international level.
The Government are also pleased that the committee, having looked at the balance of the arguments, has declared itself in favour of overseas investment in UK science. The Government agree that, while the UK should certainly not sell itself short in the services which it provides to overseas investors, there is no place for scientific protectionism. As my noble friend Lady Perry rightly said, there can be no doubt that the quality of UK science would be impoverished, and the range of opportunities open to our scientists reduced, without the flow of personnel and ideas which international investment promotes. This in turn would lead to a diminishing of inward investment, and of the financial benefits to UK science and the UK economy more widely. The Government therefore agree that we must seek to retain and enhance the attractions of the UK as a target for international investment in science.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, stressed one point in your Lordships' report; namely, the strength of the UK science and engineering base as a major factor in attracting overseas investment. This country has a range of world-class science and world-class science-based industry. We have particular strengths in chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and in genetics. As my noble friend Lady Perry rightly said, we produce first-class scientists across the range of disciplines who are dedicated and innovative in their research. The Government are fully committed to maintaining and enhancing the health and vibrancy of our science and engineering base.
Despite a difficult public expenditure round, with strong competition from other priorities, the funding council allocations for research are substantial and represent a fair share of available funds, and the science budget for 1995–96 is over 30 per cent. in real terms above its value in 1979–80.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred to a decline in government spending. The resources available for science in 1995–96 in real terms are 2 per cent. higher than in 1993–94 and we have maintained spending at its previous record level. That shows the high priority accorded to science. In fact, because of the decrease in inflation expectations compared with this time last year the science budget in 1995–96 will buy over £30 million more in science. This gives the Office of Public Service and Science a strong platform for taking forward with the scientific community the important policies set out in the science, engineering and technology White Paper, Realising Our Potential.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster emphasised on 2nd February, in his speech on the allocation of the science budget in another place, our concern continues to be to target as much of the science budget as possible into leading-edge science. This will allow us to support areas of emerging importance such as genetics and biotechnology, as well as the all-important underpinning disciplines such as chemistry, physics and mathematics. We are also continuing to place emphasis on support for top-class people, and to

1303
encourage the growth of interaction between the science base and industry and commerce. All those measures will further strengthen our science and engineering base.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, stressed the importance of getting international collaborative relations right. The Government agree that there are many benefits to be secured from international collaborations in science and engineering. In these activities, as in so many others, two heads are often better than one. By developing such collaborations we can reap benefits from discussing ideas jointly with other experts, who may well bring a different perspective which will enrich our own expertise and knowledge. Research collaboration can lead to development, and subsequently to commercial joint ventures or similar arrangements. That collaboration at the research phase can lead to significant commercial benefits which might not otherwise be achieved.
Collaboration is a form of partnership and the benefits must flow to both partners. We must therefore go into collaborative ventures of this kind with care and forethought. Done properly, collaboration can give substantial benefits; done badly it leads to losses. It is important in this context for universities to recognise the value of intellectual property rights and to protect their activities appropriately. Questions such as who will have access to new knowledge for future research must be addressed, as well as finding the right contract conditions to attract external investment. As your Lordships' report brought out, there is no simple rule to be applied here. Diversity in intellectual property exploitation is therefore a strength.
The report recommends that the technology foresight teams should also give due weight to research which may be of interest to users worldwide. I can assure your Lordships that the foresight teams have been assessing market and technological opportunities on the basis of global trends and prospects.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, stressed the importance of maintaining high-quality, basic, strategic and applied research. That is the mission of the research councils. Their role is not to become short-term problem-solvers for industrial customers, whether in the UK or elsewhere, but to train highly skilled men and women and to conduct research at the frontiers of knowledge. The councils are being encouraged to develop productive relationships with users in order to enhance the UK's industrial competitiveness and quality of life; but that in no sense implies a parochial approach. The Government agree with the committee that the research councils should continue to adopt an international focus in pursuit of their remits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, drew attention to the development of links with the Pacific Rim. The Government regard collaboration with the emerging economies of the Asia-Pacific region as key to the UK's international science policy. Your Lordships may he interested to hear that the UK/Japan and Asia Pacific Advisory Group published its second report, on collaboration with the Republic of Korea, on 8th March. The report was launched in the presence of my honourable friend the Minister for Science and the Korean Minister for Science and Technology, both of whom warmly
1304
welcomed the report's recommendations. A high-level round-table will be held later this year in Seoul to discuss scientific and technological issues of mutual priority. The group's next report will focus on collaboration with the People's Republic of China.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, will be pleased to hear that the Government continue to believe that the exchange of people is an integral part of international collaboration. The Government will therefore continue to support exchange schemes and scholarships administered by the British Council and the Royal Society. I also warmly welcome the proposal to extend the Department of Trade and Industry's Engineers to Japan Scheme, administered by the Royal Academy of Engineering, to cover industrial secondments in the Republic of Korea.
The Government agree that travel funds are important for active British researchers. This plays an important part not only in broadening the knowledge and experience of our scientists and engineers, but also in sowing the seeds of international investment in UK science through contacts made in other countries. In recognition of that the Government are maintaining their funding of support in 1995–96 by the Royal Society for overseas travel by British scientists. They also made available an additional £100,000 to the Royal Academy of Engineering to fund secondments of academic engineers to industry, be the companies UK or foreign-owned. In addition to that, the British Council is currently supporting visits by British scientists with partner organisations for over 800 joint research projects within Europe and Japan. The Welsh Office is also supporting travel and subsistence costs of university researchers in Wales to enable them to visit Japan. In this way it is hoped to develop links with Japanese researchers working in the same fields.
My noble friend Lady Perry mentioned the inflow of overseas students studying in the UK. I agree that overseas students make an important contribution to UK science, not only in terms of the financial revenue which they bring with them, but also, importantly, in the contribution which they make to the advancement of knowledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that there has recently been a decline in the number of overseas students in science and technology. In 1992 there were around 100,000 overseas students, including 33,900 at postgraduate level studying in the United Kingdom at higher and further education institutions. That is a record high; an increase of some 45,000 since 1983–84. Almost one-third of all overseas students in the UK are coming from countries in the Far East.
The Government agree with the committee that we must continue our efforts to attract overseas students, particularly in the face of growing competition from other countries keen to share in the benefits which they bring. The Government provide substantial support for overseas students including those in the science and technology fields. That includes offering a range of scholarships and awards to attract students to this country. Those totalled 21,000 in 1992–93 at a cost of £150 million. All of the Pacific Rim countries remain a high priority and several key country programmes are each worth well over £1 million a year.

1305
The committee signalled particularly the position of students from Hong Kong wishing to study in Britain after 1997. The basis for Hong Kong students after 1997 will clearly change. But I am pleased to say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office proposes to put in place a new and generous programme for Hong Kong under their British Chevening Scholarship scheme. The scheme already operates in mainland China.
The committee found, taking evidence from a variety of sources, that there are various factors in play in the choice of destination for overseas students. Important among these is the strength of the science base, and we have the natural advantage of the English language, as many noble Lords mentioned. We must also however do our best constantly to ensure that the quality of the student's experience remains high, if we are not to lose out to our competitors. The Government therefore seek to underpin the good work of UK institutions in welcoming and supporting students from overseas, and a government booklet for overseas students is about to be issued which explains the further and higher education systems in the UK and what the students can expect of those systems. I am pleased to be able to say that the British Council, funded by government, has a code of practice which further and higher education institutions have agreed. It particularly addresses overseas students' needs and how they may best be met by institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the desirability of hosting scientific facilities in the UK. We are alive to that possibility. A good example of this was the initiative by the Office of Science and Technology, Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Foundation to attract the European Bioinformatics Institute to Cambridge. The UK will continue to bid to host further international scientific facilities where appropriate and will examine each case on its merits against the UK's strengths in the field.
In seeking to attract interest from overseas in UK science there is clearly a role for our embassies and high commissions as well as for the British Council. UK scientists themselves, through their work in international collaborations, do much to promote British science. But we need to back that up with support in raising awareness of what this country has to offer, not only in terms of its science, but also in terms of favourable economic conditions for overseas investors.
The Government echo the concern that the overall scientific effort should be appropriate to the demands placed on it. As mentioned in the report, there has recently been an interdepartmental review of our overseas science and technology work. In line with a key recommendation of the review, a small steering group has been set up to guide the operation and management of the overseas science and technology network. A key role of the steering group will be to ensure that science continues to be given appropriate priority by the UK's representatives abroad.
1306
Promoting the world-class standing of much of the UK's science and technology was also a recommendation of the review. That is being taken forward by a sub-group of the steering group. It has already resulted in the production of a major brochure on UK science and technology for wide dissemination by our posts overseas.
The Government welcome the committee's endorsement of government policy towards foreign-owned firms and access to government support. Your Lordships will be aware that last week the Government relaunched the LINK scheme—one of the major mechanisms for collaboration between industry and commerce and our academic research scientists. The LINK initiative is an excellent example of how companies can play a part in research projects supported by the Government to the benefit of both parties. In LINK, multinational companies are able to participate and receive government grants, provided that they have a significant manufacturing and research base in the UK, and the benefits of the research are used for wealth creation within the UK or European Union. The latest figures show that between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the companies participating in LINK projects are foreign-owned companies.
The Department of Trade and Industry made available £3 million extra for LINK, matching an additional £3 million made available through the science budget. That is specifically to take forward the outcomes of Technology Foresight. We are now inviting industrial matching of those funds to bring total funding for LINK to £70 million in 1995–96.
The Government agree that a strong local science base can be attractive to international investors. The higher education funding councils for England, Scotland and Wales and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland are responsible for strengthening and maintaining the science base to work with industry in a variety of ways. For example, all the higher education funding councils have elements in their funding formula that reward universities' collaborations with industry, and which do not discriminate between UK and foreign-owned companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, rightly emphasised that providing the right financial climate is key to attracting inward investment. We believe that the overall fiscal regime is broadly a match for those available overseas. The UK's main rate of corporation tax (33 per cent.) is the lowest among the major industrialised countries. The UK also has a lower rate of 25 per cent. for companies whose profits do not exceed £300,000. Our aim is to create a neutral tax regime which avoids distorting investment decisions. And it remains the Government's view that low tax rates and a broad tax base, with few special reliefs, provide the best framework for sustainable, long-term growth.
The committee was concerned that international investment in UK science is not part of the common currency of science policy discussion. I hope that through this debate, and in due course through the

1307
Government's response to the report, it will be clear that it is an important component of government's strategy for science, engineering and technology. Some of the examples of the policy initiatives which I have quoted today should, I hope, have gone some way to allaying these concerns. The Government's role is to encourage and facilitate both national and international investment in UK science. The committee has generally endorsed existing government policy and has provided thought-provoking and valuable recommendations for other policy actions. The Government will provide a formal response to the report in due course. But we are most grateful to your Lordships for the benefit of the committee's views and the views of those expressed today.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am sure I speak for all the Members of your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee in saying how grateful I am to those who have contributed to this excellent debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for her kind remarks and say how much the sub-committee would agree with the comments which she stressed about the crucial role played by the inflow of science students from overseas. They function as ambassadors for British science on returning to their own countries, all too often seeking investment from their countries in science in Britain, which I believe is one of the most important factors contributing to the success which I reported upon this evening.
I am glad, too, that she stressed the crucial importance of developing partnerships with overseas countries, not least—it was good to hear the noble Earl stress this point—relating to the developments now occurring through discussions between government, on the one hand, and the so-called Asian tigers of Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, on the other. In a recent newspaper report someone referred to the "tiger pups" of countries which are beginning to develop their science base; namely, Thailand and China. I can only say that the People's Republic is certainly in this respect some pup. But it was good to hear that the Government are now embarking on discussions with that country, where clearly a great deal of scientific expertise is emerging and a great deal of scientific development is likely.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, on his outstanding maiden speech. He brought to bear his engineering expertise and his industrial experience in contributing so usefully to this debate. I cannot believe, on looking at his comparative youth, that he could possibly have retired. But at least it will allow him the opportunity to devote much more time and his considerable energies and capabilities to enriching and enlivening the work and the debates in this House in the future. We look forward to hearing from him on many more occasions.
1308
Turning to the comments of my noble friend Lord Porter, it is absolutely right that science is international. Virtually every discovery made in science builds upon the developments which have been achieved in many different parts of the world. He referred to an issue upon which I do not believe the noble Earl concentrated in his reply. We send out yet again that message to British industry that it is crucially important, as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, said, that it discards its policy of short-termism in investment and scientific R&D and follows the examples set by so many overseas companies in taking a long-term view.
We must remember that wise saying of the great American, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man's upper storey if he has common sense on the ground floor. Application of scientific discovery with common sense and its exploitation in industry must be the lesson for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, did well to remind us how crucial are the personal relationships built up by scientists across the world. It was good to hear from the noble Earl that travel funds through the organisations that he mentioned will be maintained to allow these personal relationships to be nurtured in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in her most detailed speech, make the very important point that global economic and social issues must be taken into account and that we must remember how important it is that science should be able to respond rapidly to global competition. She, too, stressed the importance of long-term views as distinct from short-termism. It was right that she should have compared the R&D expenditure through government funding in this country with that of our many other competitors, though the same kind of figures could be quoted in many other areas of activity across a very broad field.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Earl, perhaps I may say how grateful we are in the sub-committee for the general welcome, which he expressed so clearly, of government for the recommendations and findings of this report. It is good that it has been debated in National Science Week. It is also good to hear that the Government are welcoming the whole idea of overseas investment in UK science and support our view that protectionism should have no part in the future. We are happy that he has been able, through the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his committee, to maintain the funding of the science budget for 1995–96. We would simply wish that he should pass on the message to both Chancellors concerned that science could effectively use more funding in the future in order not only to maintain but develop the science base.
There is no doubt that one of the concerns expressed to us very widely across the field was that there is a danger that the equipment in the universities and in many of our major scientific centres may be

1309
lagging behind the kind of facilities that may be available in those countries of the Pacific Rim. As he rightly said, we must maintain a high quality of experience for those overseas students if we are to continue to attract them to work in British science, engineering and technology.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Porter, said about George III and Benjamin Franklin. I cannot forbear quoting another famous American, Thomas Jefferson, who said,
"I believe in an aristocracy of merit based upon a democracy of opportunity".
1310
That is what we must strive for in British science as being one of the principles that we must examine for the future. That is why it is crucial, as the noble Earl said, that the funds available should be targeted to leading edge science.
We look forward to the Government's formal response but I can only say in conclusion that, on behalf of the sub-committee, I am very grateful for the welcome which the noble Earl has given to our report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Law of Trusts: Delegation by Individual Trustees
  Law of Trusts: Delegation by Individual Trustees
  Structured Settlements and Interim and Provincial Damages
  Structured Settlements and Interim and Provincial Damages
  Caring for the Suicidal in Custody: Wandsworth Prison
  Caring for the Suicidal in Custody: Wandsworth Prison
  Vaccine 10H03A
  Vaccine 10H03A
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  UNHCR: UK Assistance
  UNHCR: UK Assistance
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Civil Use of Nuclear Energy
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Civil Use of Nuclear Energy
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Security Assurances
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Security Assurances
  European Union: UK Membership
  European Union: UK Membership
  General Olusegun Obasanjo
  General Olusegun Obasanjo
  Northern Ireland: Young Offenders Awaiting Trial
  Northern Ireland: Young Offenders Awaiting Trial
  Scottish Shellfish Depuration Plants: Charging Schemes
  Scottish Shellfish Depuration Plants: Charging Schemes