Sitting of 23 March 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday, 30 March.

    QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday, 30 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received over the past 12 months about the export of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [13874]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Over the past 12 months we have received approximately 90,000 items of correspondence on the transport of live animals.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware of reports that English farmers have been using the Scottish port of Cairnryan as a back door for the export of veal calves to the continent via the Irish Republic? The animals are apparently transported by road from the south of England to Cairnryan, shipped over to Northern Ireland, smuggled across the border into the Irish Republic, then shipped to the continent so that, by the time they reach their eventual destination, some of them have travelled more than 2,500 miles. Will the Minister consult the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland and the Irish Minister for Agriculture to try to put a stop to that barbaric practice?
    Mrs. Browning: I certainly will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will provide me with evidence to help me look into the matter.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) voted in 1975, when the last Labour Government reintroduced the export of live animals? Is it not important to understand that we are discussing not exports as such,
    468
    but the importance, pursued by the Government, of ensuring the maximum welfare of animals in all forms of transit?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. The welfare of animals is our prime concern, which is why we take seriously claims that the rules are being violated. However, my hon. Friend is right: it is a legal trade and, under good welfare conditions, we believe that it should continue. That is why we are working actively to ensure that not only do we have good standards but that standards in the rest of Europe are improved to our level.
    Mr. Morley: The Minister will be aware that one of the problems of the live animal trade is the definition of animals in the treaty of Rome as "agricultural products". At the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in 1996, will she argue for redefining animals as "sentient beings" as a matter of principle at this stage?
    Mrs. Browning: At this stage, we are prepared to look at reasoned arguments about the definition of live animals, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on that today.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the welfare of animals is important, the livelihoods of farmers should come first? Would not it be a good thing if the House showed the same concern for farmers and farm workers, many of whom in my constituency are now losing their jobs as a result of demonstrations, as was shown recently in the case of fishermen?
    Mrs. Browning: I hope that the House and my hon. Friend agree that the majority of farmers are the very people who care about animal welfare. They not only look after them well on farms but they, too, are concerned when welfare standards are violated in transporting animals. I agree with my hon. Friend that we all deplore violence and I hope that those who wish to make their views known—I know that some of them hold them passionately—will do so in a law-abiding and peaceful way.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and others should not make allegations in the House which they cannot substantiate? Will she take it from me that the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department faxes to me the records of live cattle that move from Scotland to my constituency and the port of Larne? This is the first time that I have ever heard of the falsehood which I nail in the House today.
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need for proof, which is why I invited the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who mentioned the matter this afternoon, to supply me with evidence. We take very seriously falsification of documentation or other matters that are not legal in connection with animal transport. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West can substantiate what he has said today, because my officials are kept very busy with that matter, and I do not want their time to be wasted on a wild goose chase.

    CAP Fraud
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of fraud in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [13875]
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of expenditure under the common agricultural policy in Europe which is lost in fraud. [13883]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government are vigorously pressing for action to combat fraud. There is no very reliable estimate of what is lost in fraud, for obvious reasons, but action to counter it is becoming much more effective.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that satellite technology is vital in combatting fraud, as has been evidenced recently by the use of imagery to detect potential overpayments on durum wheat to Italy? Is he aware that the national remote sensing centre this morning met representatives of the Department of Trade and the British national space centre to consider the further potential of using satellites for detecting fraud and in agricultural management? Will he undertake to meet representatives of the DTI and to study the NRSC report so that we can continue to exploit this potential, which is valuable British expertise?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, and gives an example of a real case—the attempted durum wheat fraud in Italy. The interesting thing is that the satellite information was able to prevent the fraud, which is better than pursuing it afterwards. All the member states, apart from Luxembourg, which perhaps is small enough not to need satellites to look at its territory, were either using remote sensing as a control tool by 1994 or, as in the United Kingdom, doing trials on it. My officials and the officials of the intervention board are indeed in close touch with the British national space centre, so progress is being made on the matter; it is a very good technique.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to ensure that other member states in the European Community attach the same importance as we do to tackling fraud in the CAP? Will he further ensure that, when large-scale fraud is uncovered, member states are subjected to heavy fines, and that they are made to pay those fines in full?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. In the most recent year for which the accounts are completely closed, there was £1.2 billion of disallowance against member states, which is a large sum of money. I am proud to say that only £2 million of that related to the United Kingdom. There are beginning to be serious penalties and we welcome that, but there is more to do.
    Mr. Tyler: May I put a little more pressure on the Minister regarding milk quota in other member states? He will have noticed, in the debate on Tuesday, that Members on both sides of the House expressed anxiety about both fraud and inadequate control mechanisms, especially in relation to milk quota. I know that that may involve long discussions, but I hope that he will be able to give us a
    470
    progress report and also say what initiatives he intends to take here to deal with the current milk quota crisis that is affecting us so badly.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Several different issues are involved in what the hon. Gentleman says. First, there is the issue of the proper enforcement of milk quotas in other countries. Very large disallowances against Greece, Spain and Italy have been enforced, and the Commissioner has to report to the Council of Ministers by 31 March on the position in those countries before we approve any payments to them for the future.
    In this country, we would like quotas to be tradeable across boundaries, which would help us. I am arguing for that in the Community.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister agree with the chief agricultural official at the European Court of Auditors who said that fraud was inherent in the CAP? Is it not clear that, as long as we are taking surplus farm production into state intervention, and as long as the movement of agricultural commodities across the European frontier can attract large export rebate subsidies, we shall always have a major fraud problem?
    Is fraud not another reason why we should end state intervention buying and export subsidies, and replace those arrangements with other means for supporting our agricultural industry?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of the range of quantitative controls introduced after MacShany are vulnerable to fraud. That is one reason among many for getting back to a much freer market. We had fraud in the old days under the deficiency payment system. Whenever one is involved in the business of paying people to produce goods, one is vulnerable to fraud, which is why it is ultimately better to leave the business to the market.

    Marketing Grant Schemes
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve the processing and marketing grant schemes. [13876]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Outstanding interest has been shown in the new scheme since its launch last October, and waiting times for grant applications have been halved.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fruit industry is important in Hastings and Rye? Is he further aware that, however much we have helped that sector with the new grants, it is still being undercut by imports from abroad? What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that there is a fair market? What further steps is he taking to provide variety in the agri-food industry?
    Mr. Jack: Ten of the projects that made successful applications were from the fruit and vegetable sector. The thrust of the processing and marketing grant scheme is to try to improve the efficiency of the fruit and vegetable industry. The scheme provides an opportunity to provide the primary producer with great rewards and to improve

    471
    the marketing and competitiveness of British-produced fruit and vegetables, thus achieving the effect that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Simpson: What success has the Minister had in encouraging United Kingdom meat processing to replace the export of livestock? How would he set about offsetting the UK's poor performance in promoting its own produce in comparison with New Zealand and Denmark?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. So far, out of the 22 projects that have qualified for £4.7 million under the scheme, seven are from the meat processing industry. The improved meat quality, improved hygiene and improved butchery standards are some of the criteria that have enabled those seven projects to gain that form of help. That backs up some of the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is currently doing to encourage the marketing of home-produced veal.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in the EC to allow land set aside under farm woodland and agri-environmental schemes to be counted against farmers' set-aside obligations. [13877]
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in the EU to enable farm woodland to be counted against farmers' set-aside obligations. [13882]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Following the United Kingdom's campaign, the Commission has produced proposals to allow that. They are under discussion at a technical level and we are pressing for their early adoption.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the woodland planted under the farm woodland premium scheme so far has been disappointing? Would it not be more justifiable if farmers could use set-aside money for schemes that benefit the environment and the countryside?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the purpose of the change for which we have been arguing—that is true of both legs of his argument. We believe that many farmers have not come forward for the woodland scheme because they do not want to undertake that as well as the set-aside scheme. If joining the woodland scheme counted as set-aside, that would boost the woodland scheme. We do not like set-aside and would much rather not have it, but that move would give us the opportunity to do something useful with set-aside, and improve the environment.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the step that he has just announced is important and would no doubt assist the uptake of forestry and other agri-environmental schemes? Can he reassure me that the administration of the farm woodland premium scheme
    472
    will continue to be as efficient as possible, bearing in mind the problems of two of my constituents to which I recently drew the Ministry's attention?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have seen one of the schemes involving Mr. Day and I shall look at the other. We make every effort to be as efficient as possible. I endorse the first part of my hon. Friend's contribution.
    Mr. Tipping: While the movement within the European Union is extremely helpful and will help community forests such as the Greenwood in Nottinghamshire, will the Minister take another look at the grant available to land owners because that lack of financial incentive is holding up community forests?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That matter was reviewed relatively recently. We believe that the grants are adequate, but we shall keep them under review. The scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred is interesting and imaginative.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: On the question of the agricultural environment, the Minister keeps saying that support for agriculture needs to move away from production to environmental and rural considerations. Why is his Department's budget for the agri-environment just £21 million this financial year, when support for the common agricultural policy is £2,800 million? Less than 1 per cent. of the Department's budget is allocated to the environment. Is that not a rather feeble commitment to the environment?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should recall that we are also financing schemes within the European Community part of our budget which go to the environment. I am sure that the House is well aware of our dilemma. As net contributors, it is very difficult for us to argue for a domestic increase in a budget when we are spending so much through the CAP as well. There must be some constraints on spending. If we were able to reduce our contribution to the European Community—which I think we will achieve over time—there would be more room for funding localised schemes.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the people of Scotland are astonished that land has been set aside when it should be used to grow desperately needed malt and barley for the whisky industry? It is difficult to explain that to people, but it would be easier to explain if we were able to grow woodland on that land.
    Mr. Waldegrave: If the land is suitable and is eligible for the farm woodland grant scheme I hope that they will be able to do exactly that. I remind my hon. Friend—I am sure that the House is aware of it—that set-aside is not compulsory. Farmers in different parts of the country have chosen not to fill in their integrated administration and control systems forms, take the subsidy or set aside. One obviously must have good land if one is to do that. Set-aside land is an exchange for the subsidies that are offered.

    Fish Stocks
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the current health of the United Kingdom's fish stocks. [13878]
    Mr. Jack: The state of the fish stocks around the United Kingdom is monitored continually by fisheries scientists, whose advice underpins the annual European Union decision on what can be safely fished. The state of many stocks continues to give cause for concern.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the common fisheries policy is universally loathed in the industry? Is it not about time that the Government stood up for a change in that policy which would allow all member states to control unilaterally a rigorous conservation policy? Should he not do something about that in Brussels before there are no fish and no industry left?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should look to his own Front Bench who, as far as I am aware, are still on side as far as the common fisheries policy is concerned. At least on this side of the House we have had the courage to face the issues. At my right hon. Friend's insistence, a small group has been formed of experts from the industry who will examine ways of reforming the common fisheries policy and addressing some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In advocating a world without the common fisheries policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman dreams of returning to the halcyon days of the three-mile limit when fishermen could do whatever they wanted and there was no defence for our fishermen.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the anger of fishermen—particularly following the unfortunate incident in Plymouth on Saturday when I think that he behaved very well indeed? What will Her Majesty's Government do to ensure that the Spanish begin at least to try to abide by the laws which are designed to protect fish stocks, because at the moment they are flouting them completely?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of sympathy. I am still dusting the flour off my shoulders after last week. Following my first encounter with certain fishermen in Plymouth, I had a very sensible and constructive meeting with representatives from the west country industry—some of whom came from my hon. Friend's part of the world. We discussed the central issue of enforcement.
    I have made it absolutely clear to the new Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, that if we do not have proper enforcement and policing measures within the common fisheries policy I will understand why our fishermen have no confidence in it. In the context of the disagreements between Canada and Spain, I have taken the opportunity to reiterate at the highest level in the Commission the need for proper attention to be paid to that matter.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Given that fish stocks are under pressure and that there are likely to be fewer employment opportunities in the industry, will the Minister give his full support to the early retirement scheme for fishermen at the Fisheries Council meeting on 5 April? Does he agree that, if the scheme is to work properly, it must be mandatory throughout the European Union, it must be applied uniformly and more cash must be put on the table? It is a worthwhile start. Will the Minister come off the fence and give the scheme his absolute support now?
    Mr. Jack: We shall have to wait and see the proposals when they are tabled at the Fisheries Council. We have, however, increased our resources to the fishing industry to enable it to restructure by having a budget of some
    474
    £53 million for the decommissioning scheme. As for other matters, we are presently advancing the PESCA scheme which aids those parts of the fishing community affected by the decline of work at sea. We are spending additional sums of money on enforcement and research and development. There are, ultimately, limits on what we can spend on an industry that is valued at £500 million.

    Framework Programme (Research)
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what opportunities the new FP IV European research programme for the agriculture, fisheries and food sectors will provide for United Kingdom researchers. [13880]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The new agriculture and fisheries programme, part of the fourth framework programme is well directed to United Kingdom priorities, including animal health and welfare, non-food agriculture, fish stock management and aquaculture and food technology and nutrition. Some 660 million ecu, or just over £500 million are available for the programme. There are wide opportunities for United Kingdom researchers to participate.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that research and development is vital to the future of British agriculture? Is not it a good thing that, despite contributing 15 per cent. to the European programme, we won back 18 per cent. from the last programme?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In last year's expenditure round, I protected the domestic research and development budget of my Department for that reason. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the European Community's research and development programme. Various things have to be done on European scale if we are to compete with the Americans and the far east. It is encouraging that British scientists are the preferred partners of those in France and Germany, which is why we get back more than we put in.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can my right hon. Friend advise me if a research grant would be available to Northern Foods, which today announced substantial staff reductions, not only in its milk sector, but in its meat and groceries division?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have no doubt that the company might be able to form a joint venture and make an application for research funds. I very much hope that that would enable it to confirm that a large part of the redundancies it has sadly had to announce have nothing whatsoever to do with its milk business.

    Gooseberry Industry
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to encourage the development of the British gooseberry industry. [13881]
    Mr. Jack: We encourage the development of all horticultural produce in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gooseberry is a grossly underrated fruit and that gooseberry crumble and gooseberry fool make excellent

    475
    puddings? What is he doing to promote the gooseberry, particularly the giant gooseberry and the desert gooseberry?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's giant question deserves a giant answer. He may be interested to know that at one time the big gooseberry season was put to the time of year that Members of Parliament thought was a dull time for journalists. On a serious note, I can tell him that with help from the Ministry, the East Malling research station has developed a new large red desert gooseberry which my hon. Friend will find to his taste with when it comes on to the market later this year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would not this be a safer place in which to work if hon. Members spent more time eating gooseberries rather than goosing.
    Mr. Jack: There is a growing demand—[Interruption.] I was almost tempted to say that perhaps that question came from a gooseberry fool, but I shall return to the thrust of my argument. The supermarkets have shown great interest in having more supplies of gooseberries. Once that is achieved, all will benefit from it.

    Trade Deficiency
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the trade deficiency in agricultural produce. [13885]
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department has a wide range of initiatives specifically designed to tackle the trade gap.
    Mr. Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us, then, why we continue to have a huge trade deficit in food and why in France 90 per cent. of desert apples are home grown, while in Britain the figure is only 25 per cent? Should we blame our consumers or our farmers, or is it down to lack of support from the Government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The obvious reason why we have a large deficit is that we can grow only temporary foodstuffs. Even in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, banana production would not do very well. However, many imports could and should be produced here. My Department, through Food From Britain, a range of marketing grants and, above all, the huge support structure for British agriculture, is doing a great deal to grow more in Britain. In the past few years, the history of apple production—the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State have led in this—has been encouraging.
    Mr. Lord: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pig farmers in Suffolk are extremely afraid of unfair competition from Europe as they phase out their sow stalls and tethers while others may not? It would be quite a contribution to the trade balance if more of our own pigmeat could be consumed in Britain. Supermarkets are showing increasing interest in our home grown, extensively produced pigmeat and I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he possibly can to encourage that trend.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly can and will; the Meat and Livestock Commission is doing that. Both sides of the House will want to join my hon. Friend in saying that it would be perfectly legitimate to have a campaign for high welfare pigmeat. British pigmeat is reared in humane conditions, which is not necessarily true of imported pig products.
    Dr. Strang: Is not it clear that in the dairy sector Government deregulation has forced up prices for consumers and destroyed jobs? Does the Minister agree with the management of Northern Foods plc that deregulation is one of the reasons for the devastating job losses that have been announced today? Will the Minister admit that as long as we have EU milk quotas we cannot have a proper free market in the milk sector and that deregulation gives us the worst of all worlds, as the Labour party and others warned at the time?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have very great sympathy with those people in Northern Foods who have lost their jobs. I have rather limited sympathy for the management, because I happen to know, as many farmers will confirm, that Northern Foods was going round the farms up and down the country saying that whatever anybody else would pay for milk it would pay 1½p more. If that was not bidding up the market, I do not know what was. If Northern Foods then found that, having bought the market share, it could not afford it, that is bad management. The overall situation in that market has been one historically where we have imported high value added products and exported low value added products. That is crazy. It is now changing, but in the long term we will have a much stronger and more secure market.

    Milk (Dioxins)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent tests have been taken in the Bolsover area regarding levels of dioxins in milk; and if he will make a statement. [13887]
    Mrs. Browning: The Ministry sampled milk from the Bolsover area in July 1994 and I announced the results of dioxins testing on 20 October 1994. We will take further samples this year.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the new team of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take a fresh look at the matter? In the past several years, high levels of dioxins have occurred not only in milk but in the River Doe Lea—about 1,000 times above the safety level—and in the atmosphere, and we now have the alarming news that dioxin has been found in the blood of some workers at Coalite. In view of those facts, will the Ministry now hold the public inquiry that was refused years ago? I am sure that if such conditions applied anywhere near Buckingham palace there would have been a public inquiry years ago.
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has rightly brought the matter to the attention of the House on many occasions. I cannot this afternoon give him an assurance of a public inquiry. The health of the workers at Coalite is subject to an independent Government committee on toxicity and its findings will be passed to the Health and Safety Executive, which will then consider whether further action is needed. I am keen to hear the hon. Gentleman's further views on the matter and, if he would find it helpful, I would be pleased to see him at the Ministry to discuss it in more detail.

    Fisheries Policy
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss fisheries policy. [13888]
    Mr. Jack: I last encountered representatives of the fishing industry on 17 March in Plymouth, principally to discuss the implementation of the future arrangements to apply in western waters from 1 January, but also to boost the sales of British flour.
    Mr. McAvoy: I am sure that the Minister enjoyed his encounter at Plymouth, but I assure him that if he ever meets fishermen from Scotland and Northern Ireland it will be an even more robust encounter. Did fishermen in Plymouth take the opportunity to tell the Minister that they just do not believe that he and his Government fully represent their interests in the European Union? In that context, will the Minister consider contacting the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to borrow some backbone?
    Mr. Jack: I had a useful discussion with members of the industry. Although we may not have agreed on everything, it is fair to say, as some of the comments of the industry's representatives on the treatment that I received at Plymouth showed, that they understood that they had been listened to and that their views would be represented fully in Brussels.
    The Canadian Prime Minister said in Parliament in Ottawa yesterday that he hoped that the discussions would be helpful. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, behind the scenes, we have been doing a great deal of work with the help of Sir Leon Brittan and Sir John Kerr to ensure that the negotiations are kept on track. Ultimately, they will come to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. David Porter: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the fishing industry, he surely cannot find many who are any longer in favour of our membership of the common fisheries policy. Does he accept that it is the policy itself that is destroying fish stocks, and that instead of tinkering with it he should agree to come out of it and start afresh?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend knows that I shall soon have meetings with representatives of the industry in Lowestoft, and I shall certainly listen carefully to their comments on the common fisheries policy. To say simply that all problems will be solved by coming out is to offer too simplistic a solution. Without a common policy, we would have to invent some system of common management for fish stocks to the benefit of all fishermen concerned. I would certainly welcome constructive comment from my hon. Friend on the way forward in reforming the common policy.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why does the Minister not accept that he cannot have it both ways? He cannot spend his time in this country defending a common fisheries policy that the industry wants to get rid of, and his time in Europe failing to get the British industry a better deal under that common fisheries policy. He has to do one thing or the other—either pull us out or get a better deal for the nation, which contributes 75 per cent. of the fish.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman does not speak for the entire United Kingdom fishing industry. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has taken a view on Britain's fish, but he will know that its view is not supported by fishermen in Northern Ireland or in Scotland.
    478
    The hon. Gentleman asks for a better deal. Under their terms of accession to the Community, Spain and Portugal could have expected a free-for-all in western waters, but we kept them out of the Irish sea and out of the Bristol channel. Instead of having 220 Spanish fishing boats in the remainder of the Irish box, we restricted the number to 40. That is not a bad deal by any standards.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister will shortly visit the three fishing ports in Northern Ireland. I very much regret that I shall not be there personally to meet him, but I can assure him that he will be received with the respect that he deserves by fishermen in Northern Ireland. One of the main issues that they will raise with him is the unfairness of the operation of the Hague preference for the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. I ask him this now, as a matter of urgency: a rumour and concern exists in Portavogie that, in the next decommissioning scheme, boats fishing for nephrops will be excluded from the advantages of that scheme. Can he give an answer to that today?
    Mr. Jack: On the Hague preference, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a complex and difficult issue. In recent times, the United Kingdom has gained overall as a result of the operation of the Hague preference, but because of the increase in the haddock stock in the past quota round we have a net deficit. I am looking carefully at the implications of that and will welcome contributions to that discussion from the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I have also heard the same rumour about nephrops and decommissioning. I will certainly examine the matter most carefully and will have an answer for Northern Ireland's fishermen when I visit.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: May I welcome my hon. Friend back from what appeared to be a Head and Shoulders shampoo advertisement? My fishermen think that he is head and shoulders above other agriculture and fisheries Ministers when he goes to the European Commission.
    Are we reducing the amount of fish that we are landing, or is the amount increasing? Is the value down or up? What would happen if we had no European common fisheries policy to police the illegal activities of the Spanish?
    Mr. Jack: If my hon. Friend examines the latest fisheries statistics, he will find that the value of landings has increased.
    My hon. Friend made a pertinent point about the common fisheries policy. If we returned to the days when there was no such policy, we should have only a three-mile limit, and anyone would be able to establish their own free-for-all. If we pulled out of the policy unilaterally, as some have suggested, the other countries remaining in it would say, "We will play by our rules"—which would be to the detriment of our fishermen.

    Meat Exports
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to encourage on-the-hook meat exports. [13890]
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall address a Meat and Livestock Commission conference on 3 April on developing outlets

    479
    for dairy breed beef, including exports. I shall encourage good applications for meat export initiatives to come forward under MAFF's marketing schemes.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Can he confirm that United Kingdom meat exports have nearly doubled since 1991? Does that not underline the expertise and export success of British companies such as Anglo Dutch Meats in my constituency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can more than confirm what my hon. Friend asks. In 1994 United Kingdom meat exports were worth £950 million; in 1984 they were worth £400 million. There has been a huge expansion in exports, which is a tribute to businesses such as those to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Will not the establishment of a meat hygiene agency, as proposed by the Government, double abattoir inspection charges, and will that not further discourage on-the-hook exports?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. There has already been an increase as a result of the European Community directive that applies to veterinary inspection of abattoirs, but that is separate from the activities of the meat hygiene service. The service has assured me that it will cut the overall cost: the amount of resources going into inspection will be smaller than it was under the local authority regime.

    Sugar Regime
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to defend British interests in the forthcoming discussions on the reform of the EU sugar regime. [13891]
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is pressing strongly for a conclusion that meets the interests of consumers and the United Kingdom sugar beet and cane sectors.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look to world market prices to balance supply and demand for sugar, rather than to artificial quotas and price rises that threaten British jobs in my constituency and elsewhere?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend does the House a singular service in drawing our attention to the need for deep price cuts as the best way of solving Europe's over-supply problem, certainly in relation to beet sugar. We are pressing for a price reduction of some 12 per cent. in the negotiations. We do not believe that our sugar beet quota should be reduced, as our production is not contributing to the surplus.
    Mr. Stevenson: If that is so, would the Minister care to explain why the British Government have just agreed to European Commission proposals on the sugar regime that effectively mean no change whatever in the next five years? How does he square that with his apparent enthusiasm for change in the sugar quota regime?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman—who, I know, follows these matters reasonably closely—is somewhat ill informed. No agreement has been reached on the future of the sugar regime. My right hon. Friend will examine the matter when he goes to the Agriculture Council next week.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the priorities for the Government in relation to agriculture at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. [13893]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government are currently considering their priorities for the inter-governmental conference. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard the Minister's response.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government are currently considering their priorities for the inter-governmental conference.
    Mr. Timms: What further consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the sugar regime, given the impact on jobs at Tate and Lyle in east London?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That was a good, off-the-cuff question from the hon. Gentleman, who obviously thought that he had been called to speak on the last question. The sugar regime is unlikely to be a matter of treaty amendment at the IGC.

    Veal Market
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the British rose veal market. [13895]
    Mrs. Browning: I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the initiatives we are taking to promote British rose veal. We had a successful veal seminar at the Department and we are setting up a demonstration unit to encourage United Kingdom producers to raise welfare-friendly veal.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ease the problems of the veal trade, should not we encourage every family in Britain to serve roast veal to their families this Sunday? Will my hon. Friend encourage supermarket initiatives to promote high-welfare veal so that we can achieve the widest distribution possible?
    Mrs. Browning: I am very happy to encourage welfare-friendly veal to be served for Sunday lunch, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I think that the answer is in the sauce. There will be much opportunity not just for roast veal, but for many other delicious recipes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Border Controls
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of the declaration attached to the Single Act on border controls. [139904]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I see no need to do so. I do not regard our frontier controls as something to bargain over. I will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain them. I will, of course, look at what needs to be done if the circumstances make it necessary or desirable.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent statement that he will take whatever steps

    481
    are necessary to retain our border controls, in the face of what appears to me to be an obsession in Europe with getting rid of them. Will he consider the possibility of, at the 1996 IGC, seeking to resolve a legislative inadequacy created by a previous Administration by having the declaration changed into a treaty clause, which would stand firm in our courts and in the European Court?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that any change to our frontier controls is unacceptable. Our European partners know that that is the position. If, at some stage, they were to come under risk, and if it became necessary to seek a treaty amendment, of course I would do so.

    Engagements
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13905]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mitchell: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's day, will he take time to consider whether the economic recovery that Mr. George Soros and others forced on him is still proceeding to his satisfaction, or has it been so badly clobbered by unnecessary interest rate and tax increases that the best is already over?
    The Prime Minister: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the economic recovery, which is proceeding more effectively in this country than in any other European nation. He will rejoice with me at the 4 per cent. growth last year; the anticipated growth of more than 3 per cent. for this year and for next year; the fact that exports are running at record levels; the fact that employment is rising and unemployment is falling; and, above all, that we have now become one of the most competitive nations in industrial matters in the world.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome all that and I am grateful to him for letting me draw attention to it.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive support in the United Kingdom for the reintroduction of corporal punishment for mindless violence—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This House must come to order right away.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend encourage our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to look very carefully at what people in the United Kingdom are now demanding as punishment?
    The Prime Minister: I think that many measures could be taken to deal with crime, especially juvenile crime. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and that my hon. Friend will give strong support to his measures.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Government's own parliamentary answers, the costs of rail privatisation just for British Rail,
    482
    the Department of Transport and the new regulatory bodies, leaving aside all the other costs, are estimated at more than £300 million?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the right hon. Gentleman this morning and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) publishing their report on rail privatisation.
    Mr. Donohoe: It is excellent.
    The Prime Minister: That is not quite how I would have described it. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) inquires, I would have described it as one of the shoddiest pieces of work that I have seen for a long time. The figures that are shown in that report are pure fantasy. They include a whole range of operational costs for the railways, not in preparation for privatisation but to provide a modern railway service across this country, which is what we seek to do.
    Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister a specific factual question. Is it true—[Interruption.] Let us just get the facts. Is it true, according to the parliamentary answers that have been given, that the costs just for those bodies, leaving aside other matters, is more than £300 million? Will he confirm that British Rail has estimated that it will spend an extra £100 million in the next two years directly as a result of privatisation—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, or with dealing with one aspect of privatisation. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Hon. Members: Who was it?
    Madam Speaker: George Foulkes. This is such a waste of time during 15 precious minutes.
    The Prime Minister: The reality is that the true costs of privatisation are but one fraction of those claimed by the Labour party. They are a fraction of the costs of the industry, and a very small price to pay for a modern railway serving the nation in the way we wish to see it served.
    Mr. Blair: People will notice that the Prime Minister has not disputed the figures that have been put. Will he confirm that when we add to those figures the metropolitan railway grant, recognised by the Department of Transport as costing £200 million this year and £200 million next year, and when we take even a fraction of the redundancy cost, the cost is more than £1 billion? Let us have a detailed refutation. Would not it be better if that £1,000 million were spent not on a privatisation that nobody wants but on delivering the modern railway network that the nation needs?
    The Prime Minister: No, I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that the figures that he quotes, which were used earlier this morning by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, are fantasy figures—they are not real figures. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman some real figures. Investment will be sustained at around £1 billion, of which £250 million will come from the private sector. He cannot lecture us about private railways. He cannot begin to tell us what his own policy is or whether he would renationalise or not: he can tell us now if he wishes. The Labour party is more interested in appeasing

    483
    the rail unions than in building for the 20th century an efficient railway that serves the needs of passengers and that does not serve the needs of Labour's friends in the rail unions.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the tremendous success of the Queen's visit to South Africa and of her impressive arrival in HMS Britannia, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain should continue to have a royal yacht?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly has been a remarkably successful visit thus far to South Africa and I have every expectation that it will continue to be a successful visit. The question of the royal yacht is under consideration.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the context of European immigration, will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of the seriousness of the deteriorating situation in Algeria and the implications that it has for Europe as a whole? Given Britain's residual interests in Algeria and Europe's failures in Bosnia, is not it an issue that should be tackled on the basis of the closest co-ordination among the European countries in which Britain plays a full and constructive role?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that this is an important matter. I think that it illustrates the kind of areas where the common foreign and security policy can exercise more influence than any country individually.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As loyalist paramilitary bodies only yesterday undertook to dismantle their terrorist apparatus, is it still the Government's policy that the same must apply to the IRA before it can be admitted to any further talks or discussions on any other issues?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the same conditions apply to Sinn Fein in terms of exploratory talks with a Minister, which is the matter under consideration at the present time. It will need to make the same commitments before entering into exploratory talks with my hon. Friend the Minister of State as were made by the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. That is the case.
    On the secondary matter of entering the political talks, which is often confused—but not, I know, by the right hon. Gentleman—that is some way down the road after the discussions on modalities have been agreed and after there has been substantial progress on decommissioning itself. That is some way away.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13906]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will know that the rules of the House prevent me from raising aspects of the trading activities of Lord Archer, his friend, and I do not intend to do so. However, in the light of the fact that the prosecuting authorities have repeatedly failed successfully to prosecute people who have committed the offence of insider dealing—we know who we are talking about—is not it time that there was a full review of the law? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the country that that review will be undertaken?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that Lord Archer is my friend, has been my friend and will remain my friend in the future.
    On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, the questions of prosecution are for the prosecuting authorities. If my right hon. Friends the Law Officers feel that something is going amiss, they will approach me and the necessary action will be taken.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13907]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wholly wrong for Labour councils such as mine in Merton to use council writing paper to write to Labour governors urging them to carry out a misconceived and misleading campaign against education budgets? Is not it about time that education authorities stopped alarming parents with political propaganda and got on with the job of providing the best possible education for our children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and neither is this an isolated incident in Merton.
    On the substantive question of education funding, I see no reason why every council should not be able, with good maintenance and good management, to look after the standards of the education service within the funds available. Before people accept many of the claims being made by the education authorities, I hope that they will look to see whether those education authorities have sought to make savings elsewhere before directing savings to teachers in the classroom.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Prime Minister aware that some observers of the sale of British Coal's non-operational property estimate that it will raise more than £100 million? Will he assure the House that that money will be used for two major purposes: first to help to clean up residual pollution in mining communities, such as mine water pollution, and, secondly, to widen the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which the Government introduced in 1974 to make available payments for men awarded disabled assessments for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, thereby ending the illogical discrimination between sufferers of two diseases which are caused by the same dust?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points that are worthy of consideration. I do not agree with him that the proceeds of that sale should be necessarily allocated specifically to those purposes, but the two purposes to which he refers are well worth examining.
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13908]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was widely welcomed by the police and which deals with joyriders, tearaways and bail bandits, was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition and the then

    485
    shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is by their deeds, not their words, that we shall judge them?
    The Prime Minister: I share the view that we should judge right hon. and hon. Opposition Members by the way in which they vote and act, rather than by what they say. I share with them the wish to prevent more crime, yet
    486
    they opposed all our changes on bail. They say that they want to ensure that the guilty are convicted, yet they opposed our changes to the right of silence. There are a range of areas where they have talked tough on crime, but when it has come to being in this House and being in the right Lobby to provide the right laws to bat against crime, we have found them in the wrong Lobby and not the right one.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
TUESDAY 28 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (10th allotted day)
There will be debate entitled "The Impact of Education Cuts on Standards and Opportunity" on an Opposition Motion.
Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Motion on the Contracting (Functions in Relation to the Registration of Companies) Order.
Motion on the local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 13).
Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 31 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House may also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 March as follows: European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 6495/94, relating to Interoperability of High Speed Trains; European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 8076/94 relating to Protection of the Community's Financial Interests.
In the following week, on Monday 3 April and Tuesday 4 April, I anticipate progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill, bringing those to a conclusion on Tuesday 4 April. I cannot yet give details beyond that, but I harbour hopes of organising business in a way which would enable the House to rise for the recess at the close of business on Wednesday 5 April.
[Wednesday 29 March:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 6495/94, relating to Interoperability of High Speed Trains. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 48-xxviii (1993–94) and HC 70-xi ( 1994–95).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8076/94, relating to Protection of the Community's Financial Interests. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 48-xxviii (1993–94)]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that the morning sitting on Wednesday 5 April will take the format of the traditional motion for the spring Adjournment, so that hon. Members may raise any appropriate issue without giving notice to
488
the Speaker, and that it will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates, for which hon. Members must apply in the usual way?
Can the Leader of the House tell us yet what he intends to do about the recommendations of the first special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was first published on 7 March?
In view of the decisions taken today by the magistrates court in Croydon, and of what happened to Mr. Cantona this morning, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we may be able to have a debate in the near future on consistency in sentencing in magistrates courts? It would not involve matters that are sub judice if we discussed consistency.
Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate in Government time on the national health service? If we cannot have an immediate debate, will he guarantee that there will be a debate in advance of any further moves to allow certain private companies, some of which contribute to the Conservative party, to take over the running of NHS hospitals?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a debate and for answers from Ministers on what they intend to do about the electricity industry, and especially about the regulator's ability to protect the interests of consumers? That is necessary not least because of the regulator's proposal, following the windfall profits being made by the regional electricity companies, that consumers should receive some benefit from those profits—a suggestion that has been blocked by some of the fat cats in those companies.
Surely the Government have some responsibility in the matter, because they framed the legislation and they rigged the sale to ensure substantial profits. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that Parliament has the chance to be the voice of the consumer?
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in reverse order. On the electricity issue, I simply say that there is no doubt that consumers have benefited from the downward pressure on prices already created by privatisation, in that industry and in several others.
Of course I take note of the hon. Lady's request concerning the NHS, but I wish that she had acknowledged that the private finance initiative in the NHS and in other spheres was essentially designed to bring additional resources somewhere where we all want to see them generated, whenever and however that can be done.
As for the sentence on Mr. Cantona in Croydon, the hon. Lady will understand that I would not think it appropriate to comment on such a matter from the Dispatch Box, but I shall certainly bring her comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I am still considering how best to proceed on Members' interests, and I hope to have further discussions through the usual channels. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the issue, if not before the Easter recess—I still would not entirely rule out that possibility—immediately afterwards.
The answer to the hon. Lady's question about the Wednesday morning debates on 5 April is strictly a matter for you, Madam Speaker, but I think that I probably have your tacit authorisation to say that what the hon. Lady

489
said was right. For the first three hours, the format will be essentially the same as for the traditional recess motion, and people can raise what they like without my having to try to answer it all at the end. That will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates under the normal ballot arrangements.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will have heard the very reassuring remarks by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to our border controls. Was my right hon. Friend in effect saying that he would guarantee that the United Kingdom would retain its border controls? If not, could we clarify the issue by having a debate next week?
Mr. Newton: I thought that I sensed, as my hon. Friend did, that the Prime Minister's remarks were extremely clear. Certainly I do not think that I need to, or can, add to them.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in many parts of the House, there is growing concern about the method and timing of the way in which the House considers controversial regulations? I draw his attention in particular to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, which are due to come into force in a few days' time.
Those regulations will introduce the Meat Hygiene Service, which represents an extremely controversial change from the present arrangements and is causing great concern throughout the country, to the agricultural industry, to the abattoirs themselves and, most noticeably, to those who think that the removal from local democratic control will produce a new and powerful quango.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 845, and the amendment thereto, which refers to a controversial appointment to the new service?
[That this House believes that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, at present laid before the House, are primarily intended to empower the Meat Hygiene Service to take over from local authorities the responsibility for meat inspection and the supervision of hygiene in slaughterhouses; takes note that through the ability of the Meat Hygiene Service to set the level of fees, a risk free business is proposed to be established with a turnover of £40 million extracted from the meat industry and wonders about the interests involved; questions also whether the regulations are seen as a convenient device for enforcing rationalisation in the industry which would not be to the long term benefit either of the consumer or of standards of hygiene in the industry; strongly objects to their being laid before the House, despite a lengthy period of gestation, with such short notice before the intended start of operations by the Meat Hygiene Service, which it regards as a contempt of the House; can see no service advantage in the proposed system over the service currently provided by the local authorities; and therefore demands that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, be not enacted but that local authorities should retain their powers and responsibilities through the application of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.]
Mr. Newton: I shall leave aside the question of the appointment for the moment. On the wider issues which
490
the hon. Gentleman raised, there is, of course, a prayer down on this matter that will be given consideration through the usual channels.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is there any possibility in the near future of having a full-scale debate on the rights—and, even more importantly, the duties—of the citizen? Some of us are perplexed about the policies being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, as the poor fellow can only utter sound bites in the newspapers.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether "puzzled" is the right word, but I am increasingly struck by the fact that the rather windy words which have been used appear to be nothing more than a cloak for an old-fashioned increase in state intervention into everybody's lives, and that is what people do not want.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the sneaky and underhand way in which the Ministry of Defence has announced the closure of RAF Finningley? Will he arrange as a matter of urgency for a debate to be held before the Easter recess on the RAF and the implications of that decision?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot promise such a debate before the Easter recess, but at some stage we will have the annual debate on the RAF, which is one of the service days that has not yet taken place. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would not for a moment accept his description of any action of any of my right hon. Friends, but nevertheless I shall draw his feelings to their attention.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on truancy from schools? This morning, the Leader of the Opposition told the public that there were Conservative laws for dealing with truancy, but he did not tell the public why Labour councils have not used them effectively.
Mr. Newton: That was a good question, but it was not one for me.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a story by Anthony Bevins which appeared in last Sunday's The Observer and which was headlined "Three-day week for idle MPs"? I for one deeply resent that sort of comment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Could we have a debate on the work load of Members of Parliament, particularly in light of boundary changes which are adding about 30 per cent. to my work load, with no discussion about whether additional resources will be made available to Members to deal with the changes? We do not need lectures from journalists—we need to tell the truth in the House.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have gathered that, unlike some of the questions which he has asked, that one elicited a good deal of sympathy from Members in all parts of the House. It should be underlined that Members of Parliament are now able to give more time to their duties in many other ways, including those duties in their constituencies to which both they and their constituents attach importance.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: In his response to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor),

491
my right hon. Friend referred to the special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He stated, as he did last week, that the matter should be dealt with by the usual channels, which seem to be extremely slow. Can he assure us that the matter will be brought before the House on a firm resolution which will lead to a solution, and which will allow a Select Committee of the House to continue its work, even after a delay of two months?
Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the things that we are concerned about is that we should, if possible, deal with the matters not simply on an ad hoc basis, but on a basis that gives a secure foundation for the future work of any Select Committee.
Ms Ann Coffey: Is the Leader of the House aware of proposals to change the fostering regulations, which are currently being discussed in the Department of Health and will have serious consequences for local authorities and foster parents? Will he assure me that time will be made available for a debate on those changes, and that they will not go through without a debate?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give an assurance off the cuff, not least because, in a former ministerial incarnation, I was probably responsible for earlier arrangements on that matter. It is a subject in which I am personally interested, and I shall look carefully at the point that the hon. Lady raised.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the conference on the nuclear proliferation treaty will begin on 17 April. If we cannot have a debate on nuclear issues before the Easter recess, may we have one as soon as possible after the recess?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance, but I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall look at his request.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 757?
[That this House notes that the first international religious conference on the problem of pornography, Protecting our Children's Future, was held in Manila between 17th and 20th January; acknowledges the declaration drawn up by delegates; agrees that pornography has become a major economic force that requires international solutions; believes that the important values of free speech and increased international communication are not compromised by ensuring that children, women and men are protected from sexual exploitation; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring United Kingdom law into line with Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, Australia and the USA so that British citizens who commit child sex offences abroad can be prosecuted under British law and to initiate an international law enforcement initiative to combat the global trade in computer pornography via the Internet.]
Will the Leader of the House have a chat with the Home Secretary to see whether legislation can be introduced to protect young people abroad from marauders who go there from this country? If he cannot introduce legislation before Easter, may I press him to do so shortly after Easter to give hope to others?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter was recently raised in another place. He will
492
also be aware that we have recently taken action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to strengthen further our controls on pornography, but of course I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main railway line which currently carries all channel tunnel expresses runs through my constituency? Does he therefore understand my constituents' concern about the noise and vibrations affecting them and their properties? Will he find an early opportunity for a debate on that subject, and on questions of compensation?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate of precisely the kind that my hon. Friend seeks, but he will be aware that progress is being made in the Private Bill Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which will in due course lead to discussion on the Floor of the House. Although perhaps not in the near term, at some stage that will provide a further opportunity to discuss those matters.
Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on today's press reports that the Department of Social Security is to spend £200 million on a computerised identity database to be run by a private company and to include details of income and work history? That is despite a warning by the Data Protection Registrar last year that voluntary schemes could become compulsory by stealth. If the Home Secretary wants an identity card scheme, should he not come to the House to argue his case, rather than get the Department of Social Security to bring one in by the back door?
Mr. Newton: There are three points to make: first, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as is well known, will produce a Green Paper on those matters; secondly, any action by the DSS is certainly not directed to producing an identity card "by the back door"; thirdly, any action by the DSS is directed towards something which everyone in the House should support, which is the prevention of fraud.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent debate on the financial state of Lambeth council, given that it has domestic rates arrears of £13 million, community charge arrears of £85 million, and council tax arrears of £29 million? Would not such a debate enable the Opposition to apologise 'to the people of Lambeth for years of Labour misrule?
Mr. Newton: Yes, it would provide an opportunity for such an apology. I would therefore very much like to provide it, but am not sure that I can promise to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has already had about 10 requests for debates of some kind, most of which he has been unable to accept, yet a few moments ago he said that the House would rise a day early for the Easter holiday. Would it not make more sense to sit on that day, which should be used to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire,

493
North-East (Mr. Barnes), so that, instead of hon. Members going off on their holidays, we could help 6 million disabled people?
Mr. Newton: Whether or not the House sat on the Thursday, it would not be a private Members' day. I have said several times that I have no plans for changing the usual arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House be able to inform the House when the Environment Bill will come before it? Is he aware that many of us look forward to that Bill because of the way in which it affects national parks, and we seriously want that Bill to be enacted, so that there will also be more local representation on national parks?
Mr. Newton: First, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an excellent Bill. Secondly, in direct answer to his question, I would expect to take the Second Reading of the Bill shortly after the Easter recess.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Was not the law made an ass of yesterday in Newport, East, the neighbouring constituency to mine, when the remarkable decision was taken to halt a trial on the sole grounds that the jurors did not understand the details of that financial case? Is that not an open invitation to fraudsters to commit crimes, as long as they are sufficiently complicated not to be understood by the juries? Do we not need an urgent debate to institute courts that have specialist jurors who will understand financial complexities of that type?
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, unless you are going to seek to prevent me from answering, I shall say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions for a full and urgent report on what the hon. Gentleman describes. I might add, however, that, although the jury has been discharged and two defendants have been acquitted, proceedings in relation to five other defendants have not been concluded.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on child care, so that we can discover how the Opposition reconcile their proposition that child benefit should be taxed at 40 per cent. with the fact that they are simultaneously encouraging the belief that there will be tax relief for nannies?
Mr. Newton: I receive an amazing number of requests to try to explain the contortions, the convolutions and the inexplicable nature of some policy pronouncements by the Labour party. I am afraid that that task is beyond me, but I hope that my hon. Friend's question elicits an answer from those who repeatedly think up those policies.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate on immigration and asylum policy in a United Kingdom and European Union context, which would give Ministers an opportunity to explain why Mr. Zia Rahman Farouki, who preaches hatred of Shi'ite Muslims, has been allowed to visit this country, when constituents are denied visits by relatives and friends on frequent occasions? It would also provide an opportunity for the Home Secretary to confirm or deny that he plans
494
a new immigration Bill, which many of us fear will be used as a race card before the local elections and forthcoming general election.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to comment about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate about facilities at the House at weekends? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last weekend, for example, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks for the Labour party on energy, had to go to Twickenham to discuss energy policy with British Gas and that, of course, he therefore had to endure the sort of executive perks and privileges that Opposition Members have denounced, and that he also had to go as a guest of Mr. Cedric Brown, whom hon. Members have also denounced?
Will my right hon. Friend spare the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other Opposition Members similar ordeals in future, and make facilities available for them here?
Mr. Newton: I think that the appropriate answer in House of Commons terms is to say that I shall bring that request to the attention of the Administration Committee, or something of that type, but I strongly suspect that, however many facilities were available, the one most likely to use them would be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who appears never to want to go anywhere else.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Last week, the Leader of the House said that he would reflect on issues arising out of my question to the Prime Minister in relation to Lockerbie. Before the recess, could there be any facility for the Crown Office, on which more and more responsibility is being placed by the Foreign Office and Downing street, at least to make some kind of a statement in a democratic forum?
Mr. Newton: I shall seek to come back to the hon. Gentleman about what I said last week, and I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I certainly cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks now.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the relative powers and responsibilities of central and local government? Does he agree that such a debate would enable us to expose the simple truth that the Labour party's proposals for regional assemblies would rob local authorities of their power? Such a debate would also enable me to express the abhorrence of the people of Worcestershire of the prospect of being ruled by Birmingham.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend expresses, more eloquently than I did, a point that I made from the Dispatch Box last week. I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, and should it be possible to provide time for such a debate, I shall be glad to do so.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to reports in today's newspapers that the Government are considering relaxing the rules on the number of roadside information signs, in view of the fears expressed by the Automobile

495
Association, environmental groups and others about the safety of drivers who are confused by the number of signs? Could he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House at an early date?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions on one of the days embraced by the business statement—Monday 3 April. That may provide an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give a statement. It should be said, in fairness, that motorists sometimes encounter difficulties because of the absence of signs to help them to get where they want to go.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) yesterday addressed a conference of the grant-maintained heads of England and Wales, and threw them into total confusion? They have no idea what the Labour party stands for. More than that, he said that he would remove their independence, by using the expression "enhanced accountability." That can only mean a return to town hall tyranny and control.
Mr. Newton: I certainly have the clear impression that the hon. Member for Brightside further increased the number of bodies who are in a state of confusion about Labour party policy—that appears to include the Labour party itself.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Disability Discrimination Bill comes back before us next Monday and Tuesday, would the Leader of the House look at what is happening to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, a competing Bill which is being held up by a series of filibusters in Standing Committee C so that it cannot make progress? Hon. Members should have a chance to decide between the principles contained in the two Bills. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to ensure that that happens. Could the Bill be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House if room cannot be found for it in Standing Committee C?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said on numerous occasions in the past few weeks about my plans for the handling of private Members' Bills. We should proceed normally. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of proceedings in the relevant Standing Committee, which is dealing with a number of other important private Members' Bills.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Leader of the House will recall that two weeks ago I asked for an early debate on the Meat Hygiene Service, since when my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that the official Opposition have tabled a prayer against the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. My right hon. Friend has also acknowledged the existence of early-day motion 845, which has been signed by more than 50 hon. Members.
[That this House believes that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, at present laid before the House, are primarily intended to empower the Meat Hygiene Service to take over from local authorities the responsibility for meat inspection and the supervision of hygiene in slaughterhouses; takes note that through the ability of the Meat Hygiene Service to set the level of fees, a risk free business is proposed to be established with a
496
turnover of 140 million extracted from the meat industry and wonders about the interests involved; questions also whether the regulations are seen as a convenient device for enforcing rationalisation in the industry which would not be to the long term benefit either of the consumer or of standards of hygiene in the industry; strongly objects to their being laid before the House, despite a lengthy period of gestation, with such short notice before the intended start of operations by the Meat Hygiene Service, which it regards as a contempt of the House; can see no service advantage in the proposed system over the service currently provided by the local authorities; and therefore demands that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, be not enacted but that local authorities should retain their powers and responsibilities through the application of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.]
Does not my right hon. Friend realise what serious problems are building up in the abattoir sector? Bishop's Castle abattoir in my constituency has been notified this week that the charge that it will have to pay for veterinary inspections is £60 per hour when most other abattoirs have been advised that their charge per hour will be £33.71. That is a serious problem, which the House should debate.
The Leader of the House is well aware of my view that the statutory instrument was brought to the House far too late—barely three weeks before coming into force—while the Government have, for three years, known what they want to do. That shows a contempt of the House, and it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Newton: I make two points. First, I cannot add to what I said earlier about the prayer that has been tabled concerning some of the regulations. Secondly, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking very carefully at such representations as my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate next week, or as soon as possible thereafter, to discuss the new Cabinet Committee which has been formed to co-ordinate and present Government policy? I believe that it is probably more to do with co-ordinating and presenting Tory party policy in order to improve its standing at the next election, and there may be a conflict of interest in respect of the civil servants who have been appointed to serve that Committee.
In order to ensure that the integrity of the civil service is not compromised and that taxpayers' money is not used for political purposes, will the Leader of the House arrange to have a debate on the subject as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether it constitutes an interest, but, as it has been stated publicly that I am a member of the Committee, I mention it again now.
I make two other points. First, such a committee would not have been established if the Cabinet Secretary had thought that it was outside the rules in any way. Secondly, as we have Cabinet Committees to examine Government policies in a variety of areas, it seems entirely reasonable to have a Cabinet Committee which is concerned with Government policy as a whole.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I ask my right hon. Friend to allow time for a debate next week on empty rhetoric, so that I may be able to put a comparison before

497
the House. The Labour-controlled Ealing borough council has failed to evict noisy neighbours, but the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday that the Labour party favours the eviction of noisy neighbours. Should not the attention of the House be drawn to the Labour party's failure to practise what it preaches?
Mr. Newton: I am rapidly running out of things to say in response to my hon. Friend's frequent references to Ealing borough council, whose iniquities are rehearsed weekly on the Floor of the House. The only thing that I would say to him is that a committee concerned with empty rhetoric is not one of which I would care to be a member.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate early next week on the question of bonuses to national health service managers and nurses' pay? Is he aware that figures released today by the Institute of Health Services Management show that bonuses of up to £10,500 have been paid to NHS managers? The bonuses have been described as "illogical", at a time when nurses' pay is under discussion and is being frozen by the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that next week would present an ideal opportunity to debate both issues in the House?
Mr. Newton: In my usual reasonable way, I will certainly consider that request for a debate, provided that the debate also embraces the huge increase in the amount of treatment being provided through the NHS, and the efficiency with which resources are being used in patient care as a result of improvements in management.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance: the provision of school transport in Essex? Does he agree that the proposal by Liberal and Labour members of Essex county council to withdraw free school transport to grammar schools is mean-minded, petty and vindictive?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly well aware of the concern about that proposal, which, as my hon. Friend will understand, is shared by my constituents. Even so, I am not sure whether I can provide time for a debate on the issue. However, I hope that those in Essex will study my hon. Friend's words with care.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Can there be an early debate about banking, so that hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss the continued closure of small branches, such as Edwinstowe and Rainworth in Nottingham, while the National Westminster bank, for example, records profits of £1.4 billion?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the banks are private sector institutions which are responsible for decisions of that kind. I have no doubt that his remarks will be examined carefully by those concerned with the affairs of those institutions in his area.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House next week to make a statement about the Kingskerswell bypass? Is he aware that the future prosperity of my constituency depends on that work being undertaken at the earliest possible moment?
498
I have so far tabled no fewer than three parliamentary questions in an attempt to establish when work is due to commence, and I have been told for the past six months that work is imminent. However, no work has commenced, and the orders have not yet been made. Will my right hon. Friend request the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain when work can commence on the Kingskerswell bypass?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have already arranged for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to answer questions on Monday 3 April. I would judge from the question that he has just asked that my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House give his attention to early-day motion 738, calling for the early ratification of the chemical weapons convention?
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the central part it played towards the negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and which Her Majesty's Government signed in January 1993; fully supports the United Kingdom's commitment, first made at the G7 Summit in 1991, to become an original State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention; notes that the Convention cannot enter into force until 180 days after 65 states have ratified and deposited their instruments of ratification with the Secretary-General of the UN; notes that as of the end of January 22 of the 159 signatory states had already deposited their instruments of ratification; views with concern that the United Kingdom has yet to ratify the Convention; notes further that Her Majesty's Government cannot ratify the Convention until enabling legislation has been brought forward by the Department of Trade and Industry and passed by Parliament; is concerned that the Department of Trade and Industry has no plans to do so in the current parliamentary session; understands that there is widespread support for the Convention amongst the main political parties at Westminster; welcomes the publication by the Department of Trade and Industry of a consultation document for the chemical industry regarding the implementation of the Convention in the United Kingdom; and urges the Department of Trade and Industry to bring forward the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency to demonstrate that chemical weapons arms control remains a high priority for the United Kingdom and to ensure that the United Kingdom does indeed become an original State Party to the Convention.]
Will he have a word with the President of the Board of Trade and insist that the Government bring forward that legislation in the near future, particularly in the light of the terrible events in Japan this week?
Mr. Newton: I am very conscious of the significance of the legislation, and it is something that I am certainly examining with care, wearing yet another of my hats as Chairman of the relevant Cabinet Committee on legislation.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend enable the Government to demonstrate their interest in the welfare of a premier British industry—civil air transport—by granting an early debate in Government time on the subject, in view of the European

499
Union's strong desire to arrogate to itself member nations' rights to negotiate civil air transport agreements and its failure to control subsidies to state carriers such as Iberia?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on precisely those matters, but my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport attaches importance to all the points that he has raised, and I shall bring his further comments to his attention.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister will be aware of the decision by the Secretary of State for Transport to refer the case of the Derbyshire to Lord Donaldson for investigation. Despite the fact that I asked the Minister numerous questions, he failed to answer my last question and preferred to plant a question on the Conservative Benches so that he could reply to it. That did not really affect me, as I am concerned not simply about the Derbyshire, but about safety at sea.
The Derbyshire certainly demonstrates the need for the House to debate safety at sea. There is no doubt in my mind that the matter requires urgent debate, bearing in mind the tragedies that have occurred over the past decade. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretary of State for Transport that, in addition to what he has done—which is most welcome—he should prepare for a debate in the House on this important issue?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will answer questions in about 10 days' time. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in these matters. I expect that we all share his welcome for the inquiry, which is now established and for which he pressed for so long.
Mr. John Greenway: May I support the call from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the powers of sentencing given to magistrates? We could consider the Green Paper published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the powers which magistrates have, many of which were imposed by the Opposition in government; but, above all, we could consider sentences handed out by magistrates courts for acts of violence inside football grounds. Does he agree that the general public will applaud the decision in Croydon today?
Madam Speaker: Order. The matter is sub judice, and an appeal is pending, so perhaps the hon. Member will not persist in the line he is taking. Will the Leader of the House answer the first part of the question?
Mr. Newton: Only briefly, in the light of what you have said, Madam Speaker. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I cannot add to what I said to her.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I remind the Leader of the House that, at this time of year, funding, particularly in public sector budgets, is being squeezed? I have an internal memorandum from South Kent Hospitals NHS trust, which states:
"Please note that the above practices"—
it refers to three GP fundholding practices—
"do not wish patients to be given TCI"—
or "to come in"—
"dates for their operations from Monday 13 March until 31 March. All urgent cases should still be admitted."
It continues:
"As with many other practices, the above are attempting to curtail activities in order to remain within their financial limits. Please ensure that patients"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I really cannot allow Members to read out long extracts at business questions. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House what he is after, so that we might know whether we can have it next week?
Mr. Hughes: Clearly, those people are having their treatment delayed for purely financial reasons. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and justify having people's treatment delayed on financial grounds?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly arrange for the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Beyond that, if, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is quoting from what would conventionally be described as a leaked document, I shall certainly not comment on it off the cuff.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls? Attendance at that Committee was so strong that many Conservative Members could not obtain seats? Will he think carefully about, and possibly consider having a debate on, whether more matters that go to European Standing Committee B could be brought back to the Floor of the House, so that hon. Members could have a greater chance to express their views on serious subjects that need to be discussed at great depth? I urge my right hon. Friend to have a debate on that at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B, but the European Standing Committees were set up in precisely the way that they have been, which is different from many others, in order to provide an opportunity for the Minister to be questioned as well as to have a debate, and for all Members who wish to attend to attend, even though only those who were appointed to the Committee can vote. Those arrangements seemed to work rather well yesterday.
Mr. Terry Lewis: As a diligent member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I reinforce the plea for an early debate on its first special report. In the meantime, I put it to the Lord President that many of us on that Committee are severely exasperated by the delay, but are even more exasperated by the leaks that seem to emanate from the Committee through the Tory Whips Office. May we have that debate as early as possible?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly understand the desire to make progress on the matter, which has also been quite reasonably raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I have said that I shall be seeking to do that.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate as soon as possible, and preferably before Easter, on the standard of geriatric care in University hospital, Wales, where, a few days ago, a patient, a constituent of mine, Mr. George Ewart, was killed after receiving a massive overdose of morphine by an inexperienced nurse who was taking

501
instruction on the method of delivering the dose via a telephone call from an experienced nurse who was too busy to help? There has been a history of complaints about geriatric care at that hospital, and I would appreciate an early debate on the matter if the time could be found.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of that case, and I am sure that all of us would want to express our regret about it. It is, I understand, the subject of an internal investigation by South Glamorgan health authority, which is continuing, and it has also been reported to the coroner, who in turn has reported to the police. The Health and Safety Executive has also been informed. In the light of all that, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not think it appropriate to comment, and that at this moment it would not be appropriate to commit ourselves to a debate.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May we have an early debate on the privatisation by stealth of national health services? The article in The Independent today makes it clear that the Government's plans to extend the terms of the private finance initiative are not to bring in new finance but to compel NHS trusts to put health care services out to tender for strange combinations of builders and private health providers. Before the House is required to accept that the future of the NHS is to be put into the hands of the likes of McAlpine Health Care Ltd., should we not have the right to debate whether we wish to see an NHS in the future provided on the lump?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the report in The Independent is extremely selective in its quotations from the new guidance. It should be made clear that there is no requirement under the private finance initiative for any clinical services to be included in a facilities management package. Trusts should explore options of the private sector undertaking the design, building, finance and operation of the non-clinical services. In such schemes, the NHS would manage and provide all the health care services.
Mr. John Gunnell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the Home Secretary's plans to discuss with the House his proposals for the probation service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether any debate has been arranged, or whether there is any
502
mechanism for us to give approval to the idea of drastically changing the training of probation officers, and perhaps replacing the present staff with recruits from the Army?
Mr. Newton: I have no plans at present for a debate, but that is not to rule it out, and, of course, I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that some 13.5 million people live in the south-east of England, outside of Greater London, and that the House regularly has debates on Wales, Scotland and Greater London? Is there not a case for us to have an annual debate in which we can examine the stewardship of the interests of those 13.5 million people under the Conservative Government, in which I can criticise the Government on behalf of Labour voters, and the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) can try to defend the appalling state of the south-east of England under the Government, with all the unemployment, the negative equity and the high cost of travelling to work in London?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman shares with me the honour of representing some of the larger number to which he referred in our different parts of Essex. I do not recognise the description he gives, and in all honesty I do not think that I will undertake annual regional debates of the kind that he appears to be suggesting.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure the publication of the Government report on the implications of the House of Lords ruling on the 1992 Pepper v. Hart case, in which, as he will no doubt recall, the Law Lords ruled that the courts could take into account ministerial statements when interpreting an Act of Parliament, rather than, as has always been the case in the past, just the words on the face of the Bill or the Act?
If the Government and their code of practice on open government are to be taken seriously, should not the working party report be open to all Members of the House to see? It is a change of enormous significance to the procedure of the House, our legislation and the way in which it is interpreted. It seems quite wrong that the Government should suppress a very important report and the debate that the House should have on it.
Mr. Newton: I am obviously aware of the Pepper v. Hart judgment, which was indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, of some significance. The proper course is for me to undertake to reflect on the matter.

Point of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I entirely fully understand why I came under your suspicion earlier, can I give you my absolute assurance that on this occasion I was not shouting in Prime Minister's Question Time, but I am grateful to you for drawing to the attention of the Observer that I was present for yet another Thursday?
Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I can distinguish a Welsh lilt from a Scottish accent. I think that both hon. Members might consider undertaking a vow of silence during Prime Minister's Question Time. I am always interested to hear their lovely accents, but not when another right hon. or hon. Member has the Floor of the House.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 1995
South Africa Act 1995

Orders of the Day
  Jobseekers Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Jobseekers Bill
    New clause 6

      REDUCED PAYMENTS
      '.—(1) Regulations may provide for the amount of an income-based jobseeker's allowance payable to any young person to whom this section applies to be reduced—

      (a) in such circumstances,

      (b) by such a percentage, and

      (c) for such a period,

      as may be prescribed.
      (2) This section applies to any young person in respect of whom—

      (a) a direction is in force under section 13; and

      (b) either of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) is satisfied.

      (3) The conditions are that—

      (a) the young person was previously entitled to an income-based jobseeker' s allowance and that entitlement ceased by virtue of the revocation of a direction under section 13;

      (b) he has failed to complete a course of training and no certificate has been issued to him under subsection (4) with respect to that failure.

      (4) Where a young person who has failed to complete a course of training—

      (a) claims that there was good cause for the failure, and

      (b) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate under this subsection,

      the Secretary of State shall, if he is satisfied that there was good cause for the failure, issue a certificate to that effect and give a copy of it to the young person.
      (5) In this section—

      "training" has such meaning as may be prescribed; and

      "young person" means a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18.'.—[Miss Widdecombe]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.19 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Government guarantee a suitable youth training place for every young person who wants one. We shall spend £676 million on youth training this year in England alone. That is a significant investment in the future of our young people and the nation's economy. It means, moreover, that there is no reason why young people need to be unemployed. We do not wish to encourage dependency on benefit at such an early age, and 16 and 17-year-olds are therefore generally not entitled to claim benefits; but we have always recognised that there must be exceptions, and those are provided for in the system.
      First, young people in certain specified vulnerable groups, such as disabled young people, are allowed to claim income support. They will continue to be able to claim it after the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Secondly, young people in prescribed categories, such as those who have recently left local authority care, will be able to claim JSA for a period intended to allow them to overcome their temporary

      505
      difficulties. That, too, continues the existing arrangements. Thirdly, young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. Again, that continues the existing arrangements.
      Most young people are keen to better themselves and take their obligations seriously, but a minority persistently abuse the system. I set out the Government's policy intentions in Committee on 21 February, and also explained in Committee how we intended to deal with such abuses.
      Young people wishing to claim JSA on severe hardship grounds must register with the careers service. As a result most will quickly be offered, and accept, suitable training under the YT guarantee. We recognise, however, that young people may not always be entirely clear about their vocational needs and aspirations: that is why young people receiving severe hardship payments who are in the guarantee group for the first time are allowed without penalty to turn down one offer of training or leave one training place early, for any reason whatever. But if they turn down two suitable youth training places, or leave two such places early without good cause—or a combination of the two—they will incur the penalty of a 40 per cent. reduction in the personal rate of JSA for two weeks. If they subsequently rejoin the guarantee group, a reduction will be applied on each occasion when they turn down a suitable training place, or leave one such place early—again, without good cause.
      I believe that that represents a clear and fair system for young people, but such a system clearly requires safeguards. First, it will be the careers service that decides whether a youth training place is suitable for a young person. The careers service is bound by arrangements made under the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, to provide young people with impartial guidance.
      The careers service will not offer a young person a training place unless it meets his or her needs, circumstances and abilities. It will take into account anything that might limit the type of training that the young person could accept, including the young person's preference and aptitude, the level of approved qualifications for which he or she is aiming and the duration, proximity and availability of the training.
      Secondly, we are introducing a new system of internal review that will take place before a direction is revoked on the ground that the young person has refused a suitable youth training place. The young person will be given the opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the Employment Service before a direction is revoked. The Employment Service will consider all the circumstances of the case carefully; if it finds in the young person's favour, the direction will not be revoked, and the young person will continue to receive JSA.
      If the young person is in a training place but is not happy with his training, he can take a number of courses of action—he can raise the matter with his training provider, with the training and enterprise council or with the careers service. Again, the facts of the case will be looked into carefully and, if appropriate, it may be decided that the training is not suitable and the trainee will then be found another place.
      506
      However, if the young person leaves a training place early and feels that he has good cause for doing so, he will be able to put his side of the case to the Employment Service. The circumstances of the case will be re-examined and, where good cause is established, a certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State and a copy given to the young person. If he reapplies for severe hardship under JSA, he will receive the full amount. However, if he does not have a certificate when he applies for a new direction, he will receive the reduced amount for the prescribed period of two weeks. If, subsequently, he gets a certificate, he can apply for a review under section 25 of the Administration Act to get back the amount of reduction that has been taken.
      People receiving JSA are required to be available for and actively seeking employment. I want to explain how that will apply to 16 to 17-year-olds who are receiving severe hardship payments. They will be required to be available for and actively seeking work, but we believe that the priority for young people should be training or jobs with training. Jobs without training attached come a poor second. That is why 16 to 17-year-olds will not have to accept a job that does not have a suitable training content. If, however, they have abused the system by turning down or leaving youth training early without good cause and have suffered the reduction in the amount of JSA that I have described, they will at the same time lose their right to refuse offers of work on the ground that they do not contain training.
      I believe that, taken together, the Government's youth training guarantee, backed by the clear sanctions, safeguards and protections that I have described, represents a fair and balanced package of measures for young people. The new clause is designed to put that into effect. I hope that, after debate, the House will support it.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I oppose the new clause. I want to set it in the context of the debates that took place on two occasions in Committee, when we set out clear and specific evidence of the Government's failure in provision for young unemployed people.
      Before doing that, I point out that during our debates on the Bill yesterday some 7,300 people were made redundant throughout the United Kingdom—from Northern Foods, Midland bank, Dewhurst and GCHQ, covering the retail, banking and manufacturing sectors. It is equivalent to 1,050 jobs an hour, 18 jobs a minute or one job for every three seconds while hon. Members were debating the Government's JSA proposals. Put in that context, we can see just how inadequate the Bill is not only in ensuring that people have a right to benefit, but, more importantly, in ensuring the necessary access and assets to get people back into the labour market.
      The new clause is not about getting young people back into meaningful work; it is not about modernising and improving access to benefit and services for young people; it is not about tackling the causes of young people's poverty; it is not about tackling inequality and social and economic deprivation among young people; it is not about social investment in beleaguered working-class communities, from which many of the young unemployed come; and it is not about challenging the social alienation of youths who have been affected by unemployment—instead, the Bill is a vicious attack on young people. There is no other way to describe it.

      507
      Without any prior notice, the Government announced that they intended to change the rules for 16 to 17-year-olds—one of the most economically and socially deprived groups in the United Kingdom. This is the second occasion in under a decade when the Government have singled out young unemployed people for vicious and callous treatment. That process was commenced in 1988 by the Prime Minister when he was Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. Against all advice from people, organisations who represented young people, and the Government's own independent authorities, the Government took action to deny young people the right of access to benefit and to support services. As a consequence, young people in their thousands were left destitute. It was a national scandal of which the Government have testimony today. Hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable young people are still left without resources.
      4.30 pm
      It was against that background that Labour Members tabled a new clause on what should be in the jobseeker's agreement. It is interesting to note that, once again, the Minister has not taken the opportunity to publish the jobseeker's agreement for young people. The Government new clause does not deal with what should be in the agreement. It is simply about the way in which the Government will have a method of removing the right of vulnerable 16 to 17-year-olds to hardship payments.
      In Committee, the Government made no effort to give the Opposition or even Conservative Back-Bench Members copies of the young person's agreement. On the last day that the Bill is in this place, we are still in the dark about what is contained in that agreement. The Minister either would not or could not clarify the differences between the adult Jobseekers Bill and the young person's version. Why is that the case? Why is she so unable or unwilling to provide basic information about the young jobseeker's agreement? Is it perhaps because of the fact that the Government had no intention at the outset of the Bill's passage to give any clear idea of their policy on 16 and 17-year-olds?
      The new clause is a catch-all, and a nasty and malicious attempt to reduce the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds and to condemn them to even greater depths of destitution and exploitation. That boot camp philosophy towards the young unemployed is similar to that outlined by the Home Secretary on other issues. Suffice to say that the young persons jobseeker's agreement will be more punitive than the current arrangements for hardship payments, as the Minister admitted in her short introduction to the new clause. What will she do about the 1,000 vulnerable teenagers who have been turned away each month by the Government's covert campaign to cut support to them?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has asked parliamentary questions about the matter. Every month, 1,000 young people—vulnerable teenagers—are denied access to hardship payments. Those vulnerable young people are casualties not only of youth unemployment but of life—they have come out of care, are homeless or houseless, or have been physically or sexually abused. Each month, 1,000 of those people are still refused the right of access to hardship payments.
      In the three summer months of last year, the latest period for which statistics are available, 6,190 teenagers who applied for hardship payments were turned away, an
      508
      average of 476 refusals per week. Nine months earlier, before the rules were tightened, the refusal rate was only about 200 a week. Between 1989 and 1994, claims for severe hardship had risen from around 250 per week to 2,700 per week, a rise of more than 1,000 per cent. The reason for that increase was the Government's decision in 1988 to remove access to benefits and other help for young 16 to 17-year-olds. The Opposition and people who represent young people have said that that decision has led to a large increase in poverty and destitution among young people. The figures show that to be the case.
      What did the Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, do to deal with that growing problem? He was so alarmed about the increase in successful claims that he sent a specialist team to investigate the severe hardship payment unit in Glasgow. It was revealed in confidential documents that the view of the then Chief Secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for Employment responsible for the new clause, was that officers were being too generous to 16 and 17-year-olds, not that there was hardship or any vulnerable young people. He denied that there was hardship or that young people were vulnerable. His sole intention in the exercise was to reduce Government expenditure on vulnerable young people. As a consequence, when he moved from his Treasury job to his present post, he regarded it as a priority to tackle young people. The major reason that the new clause has been proposed is to reduce the overall sum spent on hardship payments for vulnerable teenagers. It is an extension of his role when he was a Treasury Minister.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: So that we can be clear about this, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the jobseeker's allowance should be available for all 16 to 17-year-olds or merely that all claims for hardship allowances should be allowed, whatever the circumstances?
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until I get further into my speech. We are discussing a specific aspect of hardship relevant to the new clause. If the hon. Gentleman supports the new clause, he should at least read it. I know that he supports the Government absolutely in any circumstances and tends to crawl to the Minister at every opportunity, but he should not fail to read the new clause.
      Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it distasteful that Conservative Members seem to find this subject amusing and sit there laughing while he makes extremely important points about some of the most vulnerable teenagers?
      Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is quite right, and it is merely a continuation of what happened in Committee, where Conservatives laughed through eight weeks of debate about the needs of young people. They laugh because they have no experience of the problems. It is not their children or grandchildren, nieces or nephews who will be affected by the changes; they are protected by privilege. They make sure that their children have access to training or education—they purchase it. This change in Government policy does not affect the children whom they come across, so they not only regard this as a joke and a jolly good wheeze, but are wholly uninterested in the needs of young people. If they were anything other

      509
      than disinterested, they would not have made such a proposal. The new clause would never have got out of the locker from which it came.
      It is interesting to note that in Committee not one Conservative Member was prepared to stand up and defend the interests of 16 to 17-year-olds. As I told the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) yesterday with reference to one of his interventions, he should be ashamed of himself.
      If the Government training programme is so successful, why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of claims for severe hardship payments? The truth is that training for 16 to 17-year-olds has failed dramatically because teenagers are still experiencing severe problems in relation to their access to, and the quality of, training and their access to employment opportunities following training.
      Only 31 per cent. of young people were in work six months after leaving training, and 30 per cent. leave training without a qualification or a credit towards a qualification. The percentage of young people leaving training who get a qualification or a credit has hardly increased since 1990 and, even now, barely half of all leavers come out of the scheme with some form of qualification.
      The Government are not dealing with the crisis in training, with the crisis in the quality of training or with the lack of full-time employment opportunities at the end of training. Instead of tackling those problems by introducing new measures in the Bill, they blame the victim. The language in which the Minister of State proposed the new clause was revealing—it was the language of blame. She used negative language about young people and how they view the Government's proposals and talked of the need for coercive tactics in dealing with young people. Those coercive tactics bear no relation to the plight of young people and their attitudes to work and training, which I shall come to in a moment.
      The figures that I quoted say nothing about the quality of training provided. The trends are set against the decline of more traditional forms of structured training for young people. For example, the number of trainees and apprenticeships in manufacturing has declined by 60 per cent. since 1979 and 150,000 apprenticeships in engineering have been lost since the Government began deregulating the market. What other Government, in changing their labour force, in trying to develop new skills and new techniques, in promoting engineering as part of a drive for exports and in trying to improve the country's economic competitiveness, would allow 150,000 skilled training posts to be lost? No other Government would allow that. It is economic madness and, in response to the needs of young people to develop career opportunities, it is callous in the extreme.
      Those appalling outcomes show that this Government's policy is clearly not working. The Government must tackle the twin problems of youth unemployment and lack of skills among young people. The Minister's solution is simply to force young people on to schemes and deny them benefit if they refuse to go on them because the schemes are poor, unsuitable or exploitative.
      The hon. Lady has created a serious problem with what she has said to me in Committee and confirmed today. We are to have two classes of schemes and attitudes
      510
      towards young people. Those who are lucky enough to have access to quality training and work opportunities will be given a guarantee that during that work experience, training and minimum standards will be maintained. But for those who, for various reasons, are unable to secure that quality training or access to employment opportunities, such standards will not be maintained.
      The Government will force young people to take jobs that do not include any training or minimum standards whatever. What does that say to young people? What does that say about future investment in training for young people? If it is wrong to provide young people with jobs without training and minimum standards, it is wrong, full stop. The Government are therefore introducing a further measure of coercion with which to attack young people. They are not only reducing the right to hardship payments in 40 per cent. of cases, but they are attacking young people from a different angle. If young people have access to job opportunities, they cannot rely on the Department of Employment to protect them, in either quality of training or minimum standards.
      That is perverse logic in anyone's language. It can serve only to encourage bad employers to operate outside the system and feel no obligation to provide training for our young people. Why should young people be given manual jobs with no skill element? Bad employers will simply need to sit and wait for the first opportunity that the Government take to throw young people out of the system. The first young people who are removed from the system will be automatically offered jobs by bad employers, who will not have to spend a penny on training or minimum standards and who will be outside the policing arrangements for dealing with and providing work for young people.
      A similar argument arose yesterday about minimum pay. The Government are giving a green light once again for bad employers to exploit young workers through levels of pay, training and standards. What a set of options to offer young people.
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman heard me say very clearly in the House yesterday that the Employment Service is not in the habit of and will not in the future be in the habit of offering people inappropriate vacancies. That applied to young people as well.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has been somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. In Committee, we spent hours giving her evidence of case after case of such practices. She could not refute such cases because they were either pending appeal, had already been heard or had been provided by citizens advice bureaux, the Coalition for Young People, the Unemployment Unit, youth organisations and churches. We could go on for hours today, but the point was well made in Committee. Young people feel abused by the system. The system does not meet their needs when they inevitably complain and the trainer or the organisation that placed them in that vulnerable position is not dealt with. The young person is guilty until proved innocent. Only when young people prove themselves innocent are they entitled to some form of benefit. Little or no action is taken against the employer who was exploitative in the first place.
      Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend recall some of the comments made by Conservative Members in Committee

      511
      to the effect that, if training for young people were to consist of scrubbing floors, it would be acceptable because it would teach them discipline?
      Mr. McCartney: A number of inane and disgraceful comments have been made as the Bill has progressed. It is interesting to note that the hon. Members who made them are not here. Perhaps the Government have made them take a vow of silence and stay away so that they do not embarrass the Government with their views on young people. The point was well made by my hon. Friend.
      We have a dossier of Conservative Members' views on young people. On Second Reading, comments made by well-heeled, millionaire-type Tory Members of Parliament on young people who were seeking employment and could not get it were revealing. A range of views was expressed, and between now and the next election we intend to use them to the full. [Interruption.] Would the Whip, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), like me to embarrass his hon. Friends? Perhaps he would, but I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] No. I have not gone soft, but I have not notified the hon. Members concerned that I intend to mention them in the Chamber. If the Minister would like to go and get them—I am sure that they are in the House—I would be more than happy to discuss their views on young people.
      The point that I am trying to make—
      Mr. Heald rose—
      Mr. McCartney: I shall give way in just a second.
      The Government should be looking to the new options and training opportunities that they can provide to improve the system. The direct result of the Government new clause will be to halve the choice of training and opportunities for young people to look round and find a suitable scheme. The Minister confirmed that in her explanation of the new clause. The Government are reducing by 50 per cent. the chance of young people to come out of a scheme or a training opportunity when they find, having been placed in it for a range of reasons, that it is unsuitable.
      Will any hardship payment or benefit be provided for young people who are waiting for a decision on an appeal? The Minister made some concession during her short introduction to the new clause when, for the first time, she referred to an internal review. I assume that that was introduced—it was not mentioned in Committee—to take account of what my hon. Friends and I said about the need to protect young people in the process of turning down an opportunity or coming out of a scheme in which they had already been placed. The hon. Lady did not say whether young people who are disallowed payments after that internal review will be given a formal opportunity for an appeal process. If they are given that opportunity, will they be allowed to claim some form of benefit until a decision is made?
      How long will a claimant be given to consider a training offer? That is important, because it would be totally unacceptable if young people were told that, if they did not immediately accept a training position, action would be taken against them by the Department. A young person needs a period to reflect on the proposals put to him. How long will that period be? Will it be a day, two days, a week or a fortnight? Will the second offer of training be a different placement, as a matter of course? What I mean by that—
      Miss Widdecombe indicated assent.
      Mr. McCartney: Then I shall not proceed with that question. It is important that people are not offered the same placement as they originally turned down.
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall answer the question so as to get the facts on the record. The answer is that if someone has turned down a placement, the same placement will not be offered a second time.
      Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister; that is another improvement since the Committee stage.
      Where training is unsuitable or of poor quality, it becomes a euphemism for exploitation, and a cheap job with poverty pay. Training is a pretence for young people in such positions. In many areas assessment has become a sham, because in truth there is none. Few or no resources go into checking what happens during the training process.
      In Committee we gave the Minister ample evidence of that state of affairs, and it is now incumbent on the Government to say clearly what investment and what procedures will be attached to the regulations under the new clause to ensure that young people are protected in their placements, and that a regular check is made on the quality of provision. Young people could then have confidence that they had an independent person to turn to if difficulties arose. Without such independence, they will continue to be left in dangerous circumstances.
      We must also ensure that schemes are tailored to meet individual needs and requirements. The Minister suggested earlier that the Government might be moving in that direction. She said that there would be checks on trainers, and that the review procedures would be examined. Will that include ensuring that part and parcel of a young person's jobseeker's agreement will be total control by the young person over the final decision? I shall explain what I mean by that in a minute.
      It is important that as the Government introduce the new arrangements they ensure that young people feel that they are part of the process and not simply a cog in the Government's wheel. The agreement should be made between two equal partners. When the Committee was to discuss the jobseeker's agreement per se, we tabled many amendments, which the Government rejected, to ensure that the balance of power between the Department's officers and the claimant would be equal, and that both parties would find the eventual agreement positive in terms of the individual's needs.
      For the outcome to be successful for young people, they must feel from the outset that the agreement is as important to them and for their development as it is to the Department as a tool and a weapon for refusing them access to the benefits system. It is therefore vital that the Minister sets out clear and specific arrangements whereby young people can with some confidence enter discussions and negotiations on their agreement. I do not see why she cannot do that today. If it cannot be done at all, the agreement will not be worth the paper that it is written on, but will be seen as just another coercive document to be used against the young person.
      Those of us who have teenage children, or whose children have already been through that difficult period in their lives, will know that teenagers react more positively if they are dealt with on the basis of an equal partnership. Growing up is difficult enough in the teenage years, but

      513
      it is even more difficult if people are out of work and feel alienated, and the person sitting opposite them seems totally unsympathetic to their position. Even worse, that person has the power to determine major aspects of the young people's lives, including eligibility for housing and access to income, training and employment. That is an uncomfortable position for anyone, let alone a vulnerable 16 or 17-year-old.
      Department of Employment services must be seen not simply as a policing arrangement for young people, but as a positive aid to help to meet their needs. Rather than moving the goalposts towards assisting young people, the Government, both in Committee and now, by tabling the new clause, have done the opposite. They have moved the goalposts towards an indifferent approach that will alienate young people further and will, in a coercive way, undermine their abilities and their rights of access to the Department's services and to income, where they would have been eligible for income.
      The new clause does not deal with the causes of distress and financial hardship for young people; it merely attempts to deal with the symptoms. The Government have chosen to ignore the real issues facing youngsters in the 1990s, who are the victims of the Government's economic failures.
      There are three things to say about the new clause. First, it allows for a continuation of the exploitation of young people. Secondly, it does not protect minimum standards or guarantee quality training and education. Thirdly, it reduces choice for young people at a time when they should have more choice and more opportunities.
      Why have the Government not used the opportunity to deal with the high failure rate, and with the number of people who do not complete the course and thus do not have appropriate qualifications? That is the real issue, and that is the damning indictment of the Government. For many young people, the current training programme has not worked. Yet rather than deal with those problems, the Government have decided to attack young people instead.
      The Government have a poor record in dealing with young people, most of whom are desperate for work, training or a mixture of the two. If they sign the young jobseeker's agreement in good faith and then find that it is detrimental to their well-being, what will the Government do to ensure that sanctions are not taken against them, and that the Department acts on behalf of young people rather than on behalf of the people exploiting or attempting to exploit them?
      The agreement will remove current safeguards against low-paid employment and benefit disqualification, and reduce young people's rights. Current Employment Service guidance states clearly that although advisers should ask claimants to sign, people should not be pressed to do so against their will. But now we know that the new agreement will do precisely that. Without a signature in advance on the agreement, young people's access to training and to a range of Department of Employment services will be reduced or ended.
      The young person's JSA is to be used to increase pressure on young people who are especially vulnerable to take up low-paid work, with or without relevant training. The Minister confirmed that again today, because
      514
      she said that the Government will pressurise young people to take up opportunities where there is no training element. That is totally unacceptable.
      Miss Widdecombe: At present there is no safeguard at all for a young person who wants to turn down a job on the ground that it does not contain training. We have now announced that in the future, unless someone has already turned down two training offers, he or she will be able to turn down a job on that ground. Only after someone has abused the system and either turned down or walked out of two training opportunities shall we revert to the present system, so we have improved the position for young people. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome that?
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has not improved the position; she has created a further two-tier system, as she has again admitted. She uses the word "abuse", describing the young person as abusing the system, whereas we are talking about young people being abused and seeking assistance from the Department to have the exploitation stopped. At that point, when young people approach the Department, under the Minister's new proposals they will run the risk of losing their right to benefit.
      The Minister's explanation went even further, because she said that if a young person wanted to get back into the system, any right to protection would have been forfeited. The hon. Lady is quite prepared to place young people in vulnerable positions, either because of the exploitative level of pay involved or because of the fact that there is no training element. She is offering skivvy jobs, with low pay and low levels of attainment. The Government's economic policies are undermining the rights of young people.
      Young people have suffered particularly under the Government's policies. More than one in three 16 to 17-year-olds are paid less than £1.50 an hour. Almost half are paid less than the national insurance threshold of £57 per week, and the Government's proposals will force even more young people into skivvy pay and exploitation. Eight out of 10 jobs for 16-year-olds and almost seven out of 10 for 17-year-olds pay less than £2 per hour.
      5 pm
      Since 1990, hourly pay rates have fallen in real terms by 15 per cent. for 16-year-olds and 11 per cent. for 17-year-olds. The reason is that the Government withdrew the legal rights of protection for young people under 21 from exploitation by employers. The Government were the first in a century to remove the legal right of young people not to be paid exploitative rates of pay. Within a few years of that legal right being removed, young people's pay has fallen further. That is the Government's policy.
      The Minister stated in Committee how the labour market conditions for young people who are entitled to severe hardship payments will be assessed. I want her to tell me what labour market conditions will have to be satisfied by 16 to 17-year-olds in order for them to qualify for hardship payments. Can she define what the market conditions will be? Will the conditions be more about satisfying her Department than about satisfying the needs of young people? There seems to be a dilemma for a young person who does not want to fall foul of the new clause. If a young person does not agree with the

      515
      Department of Employment's view about labour market conditions, a range of sanctions will be introduced against the young person, irrespective of his needs.
      If we are serious about dealing with the needs of 16 and 17-year-olds, we must ensure that the conditions will assist them in relation to the labour market and will not assist the Government in their ideological drive to lower wages and reduce working conditions in the marketplace.
      Miss Widdecombe: The Government want higher wages.
      Mr. McCartney: The Minister knows that that is not the case, despite what she says from a sedentary position.
      The Minister is the same hon. Lady who, yesterday, gleefully denied people on benefit the right to a minimum level of pay if they come off benefit to go into work. She is prepared to allow people to work for £1 an hour, or thereabouts. If they do not take such jobs, they could—under the jobseeker's agreement—lose their right to benefit after 13 weeks. What the Minister hates is that the public are beginning to realise what the consequences of the legislation will be for them, their families and their young children.
      The Minister fails to accept evidence that has been provided to the Department with regard to 16 to 17-year-olds. Almost half those claiming severe hardship payments had no money when they claimed and were totally destitute. That situation has arisen since 1988, and was precisely predicted at that time. If the Government remove from young and vulnerable people their access to income, they will be left destitute.
      One third of those young people had been thrown out of the family home, or had been living with relatives and friends who could no longer support them. One in 10 had been in care. Some 22 per cent. had been physically or sexually abused. Severe hardship claims have risen 20-fold between 1988 and 1994 because of the Government's callous proposals. Some 45 per cent. of all claimants have slept rough.
      What an image for Great Britain in 1995. What an image of what we are doing to a generation of young people. Who would have believed that we would approach the turn of the century with a Government whose policies after 16 years deny young people who have been physically or sexually abused access to income? One in 10 young people who have been in care are being denied access to income, and 45 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds who need severe hardship payments are homeless and sleeping rough. What a crisis for our young people. What is the Government's response? It is a clause that denies young people further access to income and responsibility in terms of employment.
      The Government have ignored not just that survey. The Coalition for Young People carried out a survey, which was presented to the Minister, of how young people view the activities of her Department. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of young people said that the Department of Employment had been unhelpful to them in its advice and assistance. A majority of young people felt that the Department was not on their side, and that the Department's staff were acting as police officers rather than as advocates on their behalf. A large proportion of young people did not, in the end, claim severe hardship payments because of the complexities that were put before them by the Employment Service and by benefit officers.
      516
      That is a damning indictment of how the Government view their relationship with young people. Given that background, it is no wonder that so many people are afraid of the new clause, which is one of a family of measures that are attacking young people. In a survey about young people's attitudes to the Benefits Agency, young people said that they felt intimidated, and that even when benefit was granted, they were made to feel that they had been done a favour. They complained that they were not listened to, and were often flatly refused permission to apply or seek advice.
      That illustrates the need for young people to have an independent advocacy service, and the Minister has again failed to address that matter in relation to the jobseeker's agreement. At 16 or 17 years of age, many young people are not articulate and cannot speak up for themselves.
      The Minister knows that the vast majority of the 16 to 17-year-olds with whom the Department will have to deal are young people who have been abused in one form or another. They will have come out of care, and may be suffering social stress because of the physical or sexual abuse that they had to endure. Many of them will be young people with perceived needs, but they may be unable to articulate those needs. It is those young people—the very young people whose interests we are supposed to be here to protect, enhance and promote—who will be undermined and who will lose out in the system that the Minister is proposing.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the vast majority of young people are keen to get work, and to take on appropriate training. Therefore, new clause 6 will apply to very few young people. Does he agree that there is a small minority of young people who are workshy, who do not want to go on training courses and who would prefer to sit at home and receive taxpayers' money? If the hon. Gentleman does not like new clause 6, how would the Labour party ensure that that small minority of young people who are idle were given incentives to do something with their lives?
      Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the beginning of the debate, he would have heard me praising young people for their attempts to get work and to promote themselves.
      It is completely untrue that lots of young people want to live off taxpayers' money. Tory Members such as the hon. Gentleman, who have a great deal of bile and negative attitudes towards unemployed young people, try to promote that fallacy, but it is not the case.
      Mr. Streeter: What would Labour do?
      Mr. McCartney: I shall come to that, if the hon. Gentleman will let me answer. The clause deals with young people who go to the Department or to their training provider and ask to be released from their training because of exploitation, or because the scheme is inappropriate to their needs due to disability or other factors. They may ask to be removed because they feel that the scheme proposed for them will not fulfil their needs.
      The hon. Gentleman was present when I gave eloquent testimony to the number of cases in which young people had legitimately sought an alternative scheme. When the Minister introduced the jobseeker's scheme, she said that

      517
      she had been disappointed about the low outcomes. She has that problem because the schemes do not work for the vast majority of young people but, instead of dealing with the problem of poor schemes, the Government have decided to tackle the young people. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is so.
      Miss Widdecombe: If the schemes are so appalling, how come 78 per cent. of those who complete them have a positive outcome, and how come the recent youth cohort survey shows that 78 per cent. of trainees rated their training as either excellent or good and only 5 per cent. rated it as poor? Ask the young people themselves, and they say that those schemes are good.
      Mr. McCartney: The Minister severely doctors the figures. Like many other figures that the Department provides, the cohort of young people is not taken as a whole. The figures represent a percentage of those who completed training and do not reflect the total number who started or sought training. They are therefore highly selective. The real figure that the Minister should have quoted is that, on average, 50 per cent. of young people do not find success through the training schemes.
      When the Minister introduced the young jobseeker's agreement in Committee, she expressed disappointment about the outcomes. That is on the record.
      Miss Widdecombe: I expressed disappointment not about the outcomes, which are extremely good for those who complete their courses, but about the number who fail to complete. Before the hon. Gentleman tosses around figures of 50 per cent. failing to complete, will he acknowledge that one third of those people fail to complete only because they go into a job or a different sort of training scheme?
      Mr. McCartney: Again, the Minister wriggles. She brought forward the proposal in Committee because the Government were unhappy about the outcomes. At that time, we challenged her for attacking the symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the fact that substantial numbers of young people are exploited through those schemes. The outcomes for them are far from perfect, because of either a lack of qualifications or a lack of job opportunity at the end of the course.
      The Minister should have introduced proposals under the new clause to tackle those problems instead of introducing further draconian measures that undermine the needs of a specific group of young people with special needs and aspirations and, as the Government did in 1988, attacking 16 to 17-year-olds. This Government are good at attacking the vulnerable, and the proposal will affect another group of young people.
      In Committee, the Government gave no sign of what the jobseeker's agreement for young people will include. My hon. Friends and I therefore tabled a new clause to try to get the Government to elucidate on the agreement. Is it not a scandal that the Bill is about to leave the House before the Government have published their proposals? They talk about parliamentary accountability, yet before publishing their proposals they pass a clause that undermines young people if they do not sign an agreement that the Government are not even prepared to bring to the House for scrutiny.
      518
      The Minister should clarify her intentions on a range of issues. For example, will the jobseeker's agreement deal with provisional help for housing needs? What is the outcome of the Government's survey on the needs of young people in terms of training and employment opportunities? The overwhelming majority of 16 to 17-year-olds are tied up with their housing needs. Those who are houseless or living in poor housing conditions invariably cannot or do not finish training schemes. Their housing needs are so overwhelming that they affect their capability of accepting training places or entering full-time employment.
      5.15 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that young people who are on benefit because, for example, they do not live at home and have good cause not to live at home, will get assistance through housing benefit and council tax benefit, in some cases up to 100 per cent? Will he acknowledge that that is a comprehensive package? To take advantage of it, a young person must simply abide by the rules that we set.
      Mr. McCartney: Once again, the Minister's comments have a sting in the tail. She described all those safety nets and then spoiled it all by saying that a young person must have the right key to open the door. She admitted that all those safety nets will be withdrawn from young people if they fall out with her Department in respect of this agreement. Moreover, she has not said why her Department is still refusing 1,000 young people a month, who are currently homeless, houseless or coming out of care, access to hardship payments.
      Miss Widdecombe: I answered the hon. Gentleman's specific point about young people coming out of care in my speech, which I should have thought was short enough for him to have taken it all in. I said, that for eight weeks, their position on JSA is protected and that, after that, they can establish severe hardship and remain on JSA. That was made extremely clear. Who are those young people who come out of care and somehow do not get a single penny?
      Mr. McCartney: Again, the Minister attempts to paint a rosy picture. Those 1,000 young people a month exist. It is a Government figure—the Department's refusal rate. The issue is their inability to be accepted for hardship payments. They must be accepted before they can have access to those passported benefits. The Government are leaving thousands of young people in potential destitution, which the clause will exacerbate.
      There is one question which I thought the Minister would answer this afternoon and which I raised in Committee. We pressed her on ensuring that young people had access to transport costs for training courses, and she said that it should be simply a matter for the training and enterprise councils, as trainers. That is not an acceptable answer. If she accepts that it is a reasonable proposition that young people should have that assistance, she should at least be prepared to ensure equality of access to the provision. Why should a young person in my area, for example, have access to it while a young person on exactly the same scheme in a borough down the road does not? It is either right to give access to transport costs or it is not. Given that the Minister has accepted the principle that it is right, she should ensure equality of access for young people, irrespective of where they live or where the scheme is held.

      519
      Through this proposal, the Government have sunk to a new low. During the Bill's passage over the past eight weeks, they have made numerous proposals that undermine the rights of the unemployed, including the loss of benefit after six instead of 12 months and cuts in people's benefit. The proposal before us, however, beats them all. By denying many young people, including those who have been sexually and physically abused, access to rights, the proposal will lead them to destitution. That is unacceptable under any circumstances.
      Absolutely no one could defend the proposal. It shows how out of touch the Government have become with reality—with what is happening outside the House. They are out of touch with the public's perceptions and feelings about the way in which we want to invest in young people, not damage them as a result of the failure of Government policies. It is a mean and nasty proposal, which my colleagues and I will vigorously oppose in the Lobby tonight.
      Ms Lynne: I shall be fairly brief. I want to tackle the detail of new clause 6 and obtain clarification about some of its wording.
      Subsection (1)(a) appears to give wider powers to vary circumstances when benefit could be reduced than are provided for in subsection (3), which is confusing to someone who has just begun to consider the clause in detail. I wish to know what other circumstances the Government have in mind in which benefit could be reduced.
      Mr. Richard Spring: It is gratifying to hear some comments from the Liberal Benches. It would be of great interest to us to know why, in view of the hon. Lady's interest and her comments, no attempt was made by the Liberals to participate in the Committee proceedings.
      Ms Lynne: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House yesterday—it appears that he was not, at least for the majority of the debate—he would have heard my remarks on that subject. I was on the Committee that considered the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was just along the Corridor, and I was unable to attend both Committees. I would not have been allowed to serve on both Committees. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would realise that those of us who were not in Committee do have a right to question things. That is why we have Report stage. If he would not mind, I should like to make progress with some detailed questions about new clause 6.
      Subsection (2)(b) allows either of two conditions to trigger the section, not both. Read with subsection (3)(a), that appears pointless because, if the direction is made under clause 13, and that has been revoked already, surely a young person will not be in receipt of anything anyway, and how is it possible to reduce nothing? I think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) will find that that is so, but I should be grateful if the Minister would give me some guidance on that.
      Miss Widdecombe: If a direction is revoked, the individual concerned, as now—it follows the same rules, although there is slightly different terminology—may make an immediate application for a new direction. That direction will be granted, provided that severe hardship is established. The question under consideration of revocation, therefore, refers to the former direction.
      520
      I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that, at present, someone who turns down a second offer theoretically leaves the guarantee group but can in fact be re-admitted immediately. Those provisions continue that.
      Ms Lynne: Is the Minister saying that, if someone refuses the second offer, they are not entitld to benefit and they will be denied it?
      Miss Widdecombe: If someone refuses a second offer, or leaves a scheme without good cause, the direction will be revoked. I suppose that the person could choose to wander away, but it is most unlikely. They would apply for a new direction. They would obtain that new direction, but for the first two weeks of it they would suffer the sanction. If subsequently it was decided that they had good cause and they obtained a Secretary of State's certificate, the amount of the reduction would be reinstated.
      Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister.
      Perhaps I may now discuss certificates. Under subsection (3)(b), what will be the procedure for the issue of certificates? Subsection (4) mentions "good cause", and the Minister said that the Employment Service would decide. Would that be in consultation with the careers service?
      Miss Widdecombe: As I said in my short introductory speech, the careers service will decide whether a course is suitable. It is important to understand that a person does not have to walk off a scheme and then ask, "Please may I have that scheme ruled unsuitable?" A person who is already on a scheme can apply to the careers service, saying that the scheme is not suitable. If it is then found not to be suitable, it will be as though that young person had not received the offer.
      Ms Lynne: That is as a result of the Employment Service and the careers service consulting together. I am grateful for that.
      Will a young person apply for a certificate before leaving the training service or can they apply retrospectively? Perhaps the Minister would prefer to answer when she replies to the debate, because otherwise she will be bobbing up and down.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am bobbing up and down because the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has a habit of taking up an awful lot of time. Therefore, I am trying to take every possible opportunity to answer the questions. The individual concerned—
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady chose to speak for a short time instead of half an hour.
      Miss Widdecombe: If I had done that, no one else would have had a go.
      The individual concerned will have a choice. He or she can either apply while on the scheme—in which case, if it was agreed, they would not suffer any sanction—or, having left the scheme, can claim good cause at that stage.
      Ms Lynne: I am sorry to go through the new clause in such detail, but we need clarification of specific issues.
      I wish to know what constitutes "good cause" in subsection (4). Will it be prescribed in regulations, as it is currently for over 18-year-olds, or will it be included in good cause provisions prescribed under clause 15 of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister would answer that later.

      521
      What should constitute good cause? Might something that damages the health of a young person be good cause? I believe that it should be. Might poor treatment by the employer or trainer, such as the wrong type of directions, the wrong way of issuing directions, a rude method of approaching that young person—[Interruption.] I assume that that would be debatable for a good cause, from what the Minister is saying from a sedentary position.
      The Minister has discussed the inadequate training element—when a course does not increase skills. I assume that that would constitute a good cause if it could be proved that the training course had no skill incentive and that it provided no improvement when the young person emerged at the end.
      The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) spoke about homeless people. I am concerned about the effect on the completion of training of homeless young people being unable to obtain accommodation. More support and understanding should be given to a young homeless person in the completion of a training course, because if one is homeless it is extremely difficult to turn up on time or to do many things within a training course. Some young people need to visit a probation officer or to attend youth service appointments. I hope that those will be included in the good cause element. I assume that they will be, but I need clarification as we are debating a new clause.
      I wish to mention various other matters, especially about homeless people, who have very special needs. I fear that, as a result of the implementation of the new clause, more young people would become homeless and more 16 to 17-year-olds would suffer severe hardship. Invariably, they obtain severe hardship grant because they cannot afford to pay for food and other essentials. If they are cut off from that benefit, they will be in a very difficult position.
      I know that the Minister has explained all the reasons, but a small number of people will be cut off. I am extremely worried about them—worried about where they will go, where they will end up and whether they will end up turning to crime.
      Miss Widdecombe: Under the clause which deals with training, they would not be cut off from benefit unless they decided not to apply and to re-enter the system. They would suffer a reduction in the personal rate of their benefit. That would not affect any other income-related benefit, such as housing benefit, that they might be receiving.
      Ms Lynne: I understand that, and I am grateful.
      I wish that the Government would take on board the idea of restoring benefit to all 16 to 17-year-olds, with proper training. Some of the training packages today are very good; some are extremely good, but some are poor. Instead of pushing youngsters into poor training that is often inadequate, with no job at the end of it, I wish that the Government would reconsider restoring benefit for all 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause seems to want to make it more difficult for young people instead of trying to get them back into the job market. I shall therefore vote against new clause 6.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: I shall comment on one or two of the points made by the hon.
      522
      Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in his 50 minutes of understated analysis. I asked a question in an intervention after the first 10 minutes of his speech. In the light of his observations about 16 to 18-year-olds and their financial circumstances and his assertion that not all claims for hardship were granted, I asked whether he was saying that the jobseeker's allowance should be available for all 16 to 18-year-olds or that all claims for hardship should be automatically allowed. The hon. Gentleman promised me that he would come to that, but 40 minutes later I have no more information than at the beginning of his speech. He has failed to answer the question.
      5.30 pm
      When I made that intervention the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that it was monstrous for me to laugh when the hon. Member for Makerfield said that he would give his reasons later. I laughed because that was so characteristic of the hon. Gentleman. When an intervention is made and a question asked of him, we receive another 40 minutes of his speech, but the question is never fully answered.
      It is right to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). At least she is prepared to say that she would extend the jobseeker's allowance to 16 to 18-year-olds. Of course, it is then incumbent on her to say how she would pay for that in the unlikely event of the Liberal party coming to power. It is a great pity that we did not have the benefit of her observations in Committee. I do not think that she is the only Liberal Member; there must be others who could have served on the Committee.
      Ms Lynne: We will be giving a fully costed programme before the general election, as we did before the last general election, when we had a menu with prices, and we will have the same again. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) will be able to read it to see how we shall pay for the restoration of benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds.
      Mr. Heald: It is reassuring to know that that ammunition will be available to us when the general election campaign begins.
      Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heald: I shall continue, if I may.
      On the subject of completing courses, all members of the Committee agreed that it was important that young people should obtain something worth while from their training. The point being made by my hon. Friends in Committee was not that young people should spend their training time scrubbing floors, but that they should be encouraged to complete their training courses. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; those who complete training courses, obtain successful outcomes. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, 78 per cent. of those who complete their courses achieve a successful outcome. The battle is not to provide excuses for young people, but to ensure that more young people complete their training courses.
      Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heald: No, I shall continue for a minute or two.
      The difference between Conservative and Opposition members of the Committee was that we were able to field some members of the Committee with practical

      523
      experience as employers—people who had employed hundreds and, in one case, thousands of employees. They said that most young people—the vast majority—are hard workers who want to learn, but a small number are not prepared to work or train. My hon. Friends' advice was that a firmer and more structured approach should be adopted towards such young people, who should be encouraged to complete their courses.
      Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only conclusion that we can draw from the speeches of Opposition Members is that they would impose no sanctions on young people who do not wish to train and do not choose to spend their time productively? The Opposition would allow them to sit at home, idle, at the taxpayer's expense.
      Mr. Heald: Only yesterday we heard from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that we should be looking for a responsible society. How is it responsible to tell young people that if they do not meet their obligations to the taxpayer they will still receive the money? How is it responsible to tell young people that if they make a hardship claim, but are not prepared to train, it makes no difference and they will still receive the money? What sort of message is the Labour party giving to young people? They are saying that it is a something-for-nothing society where one does not need to train or work, but can get something for nothing. What sort of society is that?
      I know that the hon. Member for Makerfield would not deliberately seek to mislead us, but why did he say that young people receiving benefits for hardship would have housing difficulties, when housing benefit is passported from the allowance? Their council tax is paid. It is not as though young people who are living in hardship are not being catered for. The purpose of clause 13 is to deal with people who are under 18 and suffering from severe hardship.
      The purpose of new clause 6 is not to deprive young people of the allowance completely, even when they have failed to complete training courses time and again. The Government make provision for young people in many ways, not just through the jobseeker's allowance. They do so through the general national vocational qualification initiatives and the modern apprenticeship scheme. The Government introduced those initiatives for the sole purpose of helping young people.
      In his diatribe about unemployment, which is a serious problem, the hon. Member for Makerfield did not mention the fact that in the past year unemployment has fallen by 400,000 and there are 263,000 more full-time jobs. When he spoke of apprenticeships he did not mention the aspect of the 1960s that I remember. My recollection of the 1960s is that the trade unions were the first to want to scrap apprenticeships so that they could push up wages. In the 1960s the trade unions wanted a higher platform for the differentials. We have all learnt a lesson and, after all the years of Conservative government, the Trades Union Congress has learnt a bit of sense and strongly supports the modern apprenticeship scheme. I welcome that, as must all hon. Members.
      Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House any evidence for his statement about the attitude of trade unions to apprenticeships in the 1960s?
      Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman wants, he can discuss the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who was an apprentice in the 1960s and can tell the hon. Gentleman about it. I cannot expand on that subject for too long because this is a short debate—[Interruption.] I have one or two further points that I hope to make—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many conversations taking place and too many interruptions.
      Mr. Heald: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned independent advocacy as though the Department of Employment should be treated as an enemy or an authority that did not have the interests of young people at heart. He spoke of the Department as though it were not prepared to listen to young people, take on board their concerns and be advocates for them.
      I have been to numerous modern jobcentres as a member of the Select Committee on Employment. I very much regret the fact that the hon. Member for Wallasey joined the Committee a little too late to make some of those visits. Those centres had open plan offices with staff trained to take seriously the concerns of young people. It was not as the hon. Member for Makerfield described it. The staff are keen to offer advice and guidance. Mistakes may be made and the hon. Gentleman may be able to pick out occasional cases, but the staff as a whole should not be pilloried by the hon. Gentleman. The staff make a serious effort to help young people and to be sensitive and understanding.
      The jobseeker's allowance is not currently extended to 16 to 18-year-olds. I hope that the hon. Member for Makerfield will, for once, be prepared to tell us the Labour party's policy on that. Is he saying that it should be extended to 16 to 18-year-olds? I notice that he does not intervene. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that each and every claim for hardship allowance should be allowed, regardless of the circumstances? That is the logic of his argument; but perhaps he would like to intervene to confirm it.
      Mr. McCartney: It is not a public school debate and the hon. Gentleman should take it seriously. No young person should be left vulnerable and destitute; under the Government's policies, 1,000 young people per month are left in that position. New clause 6 will make the situation worse. It is the Government's proposal and the hon. Gentleman should either defend or oppose it. The Government are trying to undermine the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds and we will continue to defend them. If he would like to give us a general election, we will test our policies for young people against those of the Government.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Makerfield flatters me: that decision is not up to me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least attempting to reply to my questions, although once again there were no real answers.

      525
      I am happy to support new clause 6 because it will help those who have not helped themselves. In that spirit, I believe that all hon. Members will recognise that there is a place for a reduced payment, even among those who have not been prepared to assume the responsibilities involved with accepting taxpayers' money.
      Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman talks about the responsibilities of those who take the taxpayers' money. Does he think that there are similar responsibilities on employers who deliberately pay low wages in the knowledge that they will be topped up with taxpayers' money? Do employers have responsibilities in that regard?
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that she believes that the Government should abolish family credit. I smiled at her remarks; perhaps she might like to smile occasionally. I said yesterday that I do not believe that the new Labour party will present that policy at the next general election. I would be jolly pleased if it did.
      New clause 6 will assist young people. It is incumbent on a responsible Opposition to propose their own policies and it is sad that Labour Members have not been prepared to engage in constructive debate.
      Mr. Keith Hill: The latest figures from the Department of Employment's own labour force survey show that in the summer of last year the unemployment rate for 16 and 17-year-olds in mainland Britain stood at 23.8 per cent. That general figure disguises considerable regional variations. In London, part of which I have the honour to represent in Parliament, the rate was the highest in the country—an enormous 38 per cent.We know from other sources that at a more local level unemployment among that age group is higher still: in some wards in my Streatham constituency it is as high as 60 per cent. and it is worrying to note that those are the wards with the highest concentrations of so-called ethnic minorities.
      The labour force survey figures show the reality of unemployment among young people and expose the total inadequacy of the Government's reliance on the claimant count as an indicator of unemployment. In summer 1994 the Government's official figure for youth unemployment was 17,000 whereas the total figure was 180,000—10.5 times greater than the official count. Some 90 per cent. of young people aged 16 and 17 years had no form of income in the summer of last year—the highest figure recorded since 1988, when the Conservative Government abolished the general entitlement to benefit for that age group.
      The tiny figure of 17,000 claimants receiving severe hardship or bridging allowance illustrates the extreme difficulties that young people face in securing any form of benefit. Many thousands of young people fall outside the youth training guarantee, making nonsense of the Government's official claim that no 16 or 17-year-olds are unemployed and that a benefit safety net is therefore unnecessary. The truth is that life is already very tough indeed for large numbers of young people and the provisions in new clause 6 are likely to make it even tougher.
      Opposition Members have repeatedly expressed our concerns about the considerable new powers for arbitrary judgment that the Bill will confer on Employment Service
      526
      officials. The most obvious of those is the discretion that the Bill allows for judgment about the behaviour and appearance of claimants.
      5.45 pm
      The provision for benefit sanctions if a young person leaves a training programme "without good cause" raises further anxieties. What constitutes "good cause" and who makes that decision? What assistance will young people receive in plotting their way through the rules minefield described by the Minister in her opening speech? How long will young people be made scapegoats because of the obvious inadequacy of training provision?
      Accounts of weaknesses in the youth training provision are legion. I will relate just three cases supplied by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security. A youth housing association and hostel provider in Gloucester stated:
      "In the last 12 months none of our residents has secured a job at the end"—
      of a training scheme placement—
      "and probably 95 per cent. are on placements that were not indicated as a choice".
      A National Children's Home project in Scotland reported:
      "Three young people on YT at present on occasion have been sent home at 9.30 after arriving at 9.00 and being told there is nothing for them to do. No incentive is given to attend and little commitment to training is shown by the trainers. The young person is not in a position to leave as Income Support would not automatically be paid".
      The youth housing association and hostel provider in Gloucester continued:
      "One resident has not found a placement and just goes in to the office for training. He is often sent home after a morning, and feels it is a waste of time".
      It is not surprising, therefore, that the outturn in terms of job placements is both limited and highly variable. Even for those who have completed their job training, on average only one in three finds employment and the figure can be as low as one in five. The latter figure applies to the East London training and enterprise council. Of course, they are lucky to have a TEC in east London; we have lost our TEC in south London and the Government have made no effort to replace that essential service in an area of massive deprivation.
      It is also not surprising that there is a great deal of scepticism about the programmes and that many young people simply abandon them in disgust. Are we to conclude that the Government wish to coerce young people into attendance at often worthless courses by means of the threat of benefit sanctions as set out in the new clause? The Government have created mass unemployment among young people and they have responded to that crisis with a totally inadequate training provision.
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How would he compare the situation in the UK with that in France or Spain, where youth unemployment is far higher although those Governments have pursued the policies that he advocates?
      Mr. Hill: We have heard that argument many times before. The reality is that we would be comparing different situations with different historical bases.
      Mr. Burden: On Tuesday 7 February the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) made exactly the

      527
      same point in Committee. I asked him how he knew those unemployment rates as the Government officially do not count the figures for people between 16 and 18. He replied that he would be happy to provide me with further information when he had researched the matter further. I wonder whether he has done so.
      Mr. Hill: While we are talking about figures that we do know, I must confess that during the two months of our deliberations on the matter I was waiting for the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to intervene on me, as he has intervened on other Opposition Members, to talk about the Government's remarkable success in reducing unemployment in my constituency. As he has not done that, I will put it on record that unemployment in Streatham is 16.7 per cent.—twice the national average—and male unemployment is 22.5 per cent. In the three years since the last general election, the unemployment rate in Streatham has risen by 10 per cent. and since 1990 it has risen by 100 per cent. So there can be no rejoicing about a reduction of unemployment in Streatham. On the contrary, I make a rock solid prediction that new Labour will bury old Tory at the next general election with an electoral avalanche because of old Tory's appalling performance on unemployment in Streatham and in south London generally.
      In conclusion, the young want meaningful training at work. They are the victims of the Government's failure and they will be further victimised as a result of new clause 6. That is why we oppose it.
      Mr. Burden: Yesterday I questioned the legality of the Bill under article 4 of the European convention on human rights because, under menace of penalty, the Bill seeks to force people into jobs, irrespective of the level of remuneration being totally unreasonable.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far, I remind him that we are dealing with one new clause and his remarks must relate to it.
      Mr. Burden: I was about to say that new clause 6 falls foul of precisely the same problem. Again, under menace of penalty, it is trying to force young people into something that they do not wish to do and which would be unreasonable.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that new clause 6 affects only a limited number of young people. The main reason for that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is that the Government have ruled out the vast majority of young people from access to benefits.
      When Conservative Members glibly talk about the alleged levels of youth unemployment in Britain compared with other countries they should get their facts right or at least be consistent with their own Ministers. I repeat what I said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost would be of restoring income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Minister's reply was that he did not know. He said:
      "The information is not available."—[Official Report, 3 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 878.]
      The Government do not know how much it would cost to reinstate income support. The only conclusion we can draw from that is that they do not know how many
      528
      unemployed young people there are between the ages of 16 and 18. Estimates of youth unemployment in Britain have been given which have yet to be disproved by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) gave the figure according to the International Labour Organisation: about 180,000.
      A large number of young people are excluded from benefit, but a small number of young people could possibly receive benefit in particular circumstances—lone parents, people with disabilities, and those who qualify for severe hardship payments.We should be clear about the severe hardship payments that Conservative Members want to remove. We are talking about the princely sum of £27.50 for those who live at home and £36.15 for those who live away from home. I have yet to find anyone with no income who is not in severe hardship, but according to Conservative Members the young person apparently has to prove severe hardship. That is matter of great concern to young people.
      A recent report by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security draws attention to the real problems of access to the severe hardship allowance. A selection of reasons was given by young people for failure to complete claims. I will read out a few examples:
      "He did not complete his claim because the jargon used was too difficult, and he felt they were talking over his head … Claimants often get confused. They are intimidated by the procedures … One young man became annoyed at the lack of direct, clear, concise information and despaired at the procedures … One of our clients was appalled by the 'hassles' involved in making a claim. Enquiries were made into his relationship with his male flatmate who was working. If the DSS could prove they were a couple, no benefit would be payable. They weren't a couple, but he was very angry."
      I wonder why that has occurred. Conservative Members accuse us of blaming the staff of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, but we have never said any such thing; it seems that the procedures and the cultures of the organisation, imposed from the highest level, are at fault.
      When the Minister replies to the debate, will she clarify one point? It has been drawn to my attention—I hope that it is wrong—that the guidance procedures and, indeed, the blueprint issued to Employment Service officers implementing the jobseeker's allowance severe hardship provisions actually states that it has to be the young person who requests and applies for a severe hardship payment, and that it is not the role of a member of staff interviewing young unemployed people and finding out about their circumstances to suggest that they may qualify for severe hardship payment. I hope that the Minister will clarify that. It has certainly been put to me there are procedures which suggest that it has to be the young person who asks and it cannot be a member of staff who offers advice. If that is true, it is a real problem. Those are the people who are threatened by the new clause, along with lone parents and people with disabilities.
      The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said that we were on the wrong track when we discussed the number of young people who did not achieve qualifications. I shall say something about that in a moment. First, I want to take up his point that 70 per cent. of young people complete their training courses.
      Mr. Heald: I said that 70 per cent. achieve qualifications.
      Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that 70 per cent. emerge with qualifications. I am grateful for that

      529
      intervention as without it my point would have had no force whatever. There is another way of looking at that statistic: it means that 30 per cent. of young people who complete training courses do not emerge with qualifications. That is a high and worrying statistic and it might have been more constructive if Conservative Members had tried to do something about that statistic, instead of penalising young people who fall foul of the system.
      Some 30 per cent. of people who complete training courses do not get a qualification. In total, about 50 per cent. do not end up with a qualification either because they drop out or because they fail to achieve a qualification. Conservative Members say that that is a problem for the young people themselves, but Labour Members disagree with that analysis and we are not alone in doing so.
      Studies have suggested that the United Kingdom's performance in vocational training is much worse than that in Germany, producing 50 per cent. fewer people with qualifications, particularly at the lower technical levels. That information was from the Centre for Economic Performance. Literacy and numeracy is cited as a problem for United Kingdom employers and is particularly acute among young people, according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The introduction of non-vocational qualifications has not been smooth and the system is still facing teething troubles, being considered "inappropriate" for unemployed school leavers. That comes from the National Institute Economic Review 1994. In 1993, Professor Smithers from Manchester university, an expert in the field, described the introduction of national vocational qualifications as
      "a disaster of epic proportions".
      There are major problems with the quality of training provided in Britain. Rather than do something about that, however, the Government prefer to attack young people. The Government's response is to say, "Hang in there—don't worry about the quality of the training because if you give it up you risk losing benefit."
      6 pm
      I was pleased to hear the Minister of State say today that there would be a review. If a young person said that training was inappropriate or unsuitable, procedures would be instituted for a review. I was also pleased that, in answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), the Minister gave examples of what might be good cause for dropping out from a course, including conditions at the workplace, such as health considerations, and so on.
      I want to test whether Conservative Members are as free thinking as they claim. Because of the problems of training provision, particularly with regard to conditions in training situations for many young people, many trade unions take their responsibilities to trainees very seriously. They make a major effort to represent trainees in the workplace and to improve their conditions, and they do a good job.When the Minister replies, will she say whether the refusal of an employer to recognise a trade union at a workplace in which a trainee was operating, even if the request for trade union representation was supported by a majority of employees and wished for by the trainee who was a member of it, would or could be good cause for dropping out of a training course?
      530
      The Government seem to recognise that some things would constitute good cause for giving up a particular training course that was not of good quality. What worries me about that is that if the Government are prepared to institute such procedures and if they are as reliable as the Government say that they are, why, when Opposition Members sought to introduce an amendment in Committee to ensure that training is of a minimum acceptable quality, did every Conservative Member who was present on that day vote against it? It was rejected by 10 votes to nine.
      That was the one time in Committee that we could have inserted into the Bill a provision specifying that there should at least be a bottom line with minimum quality conditions for training. The amendment was not prescriptive. It did not set out conditions which had to be met. It simply said that minimum conditions should be prescribed for training. That could be dealt with by way of regulations. Conservative Members love regulations. The Bill is littered with powers for Ministers to specify this or that by way of regulation. Yet when it came to an amendment saying that there should be an obligation on the Government to lay down minimum conditions for quality of training, the Government refused to accept it and they were backed up in that refusal by every Conservative Member who was present that day.
      I hope that what the Minister is saying is right. I hope that the reviews do work. Given the Government's performance in Committee and the sort of arguments that Conservative Members have put forward today, however, I am sceptical about that and young people will be fairly sceptical about it, too. They know that that same Government wiped them out from the unemployment statistics, removed a large majority of them from any access to benefit at all and, when they had the chance to lay down proper training provisions, did not do so. And the same Government have turned a blind eye to all the evidence that they have received from bodies such as the Coalition on Young People and Social Security, Youth Aid and the citizens advice bureaux on the operation of the severe hardship provisions and the lack of quality training in Britain.
      All those groups have provided ample evidence of the real problems facing young people today. Despite all that evidence, however, the Government have failed on Report to insert any provision in the Bill to improve the quality of training. All that they have chosen to insert is a measure which will penalise young people. Faced with that, I am pretty sceptical about the Government's motives and I am convinced that young people outside will be as well.
      Mr. Streeter: This is also the Government who have enabled more young people than ever before in the history of this nation to take part in higher and further education and to further their own lives. This is the Government who have done more in the past two years than any Government in history to bring unemployment down and to create jobs for young people.
      It is no wonder that members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill do not understand the labour market. They do not understand that young people want meaningful jobs. Not one of them has had any experience of the private sector or of job creation. Before they came into the House, all of them languished in the public sector.

      531
      I support new clause 6. I understand that the Labour party opposes it, but Labour Members should tell us what sanctions the Labour party would incorporate in its proposals for the small minority of young people who prefer to sit at home, who do not want to get a job or to go on to higher or further education, who want to leave school but are not prepared to go on reasonable training courses, in order to ensure that they have the incentive to take training for their own benefit.
      I visit many schools in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do you. Most young people are super. They are highly motivated. They know that they want to train for their own benefit and they are committed to their careers. But we have to accept that a small minority of young people drift through life between the ages of 16 and 18. I was concerned recently to learn about some of the messages of despair and hopelessness sent out by some modern day pop groups. We have heard recently of the suicide of Kurt Cobain and one or two other music leaders of this generation.
      What kind of example is it to say to young people, as the Labour party appears to be saying in its opposition to new clause 6, that it is all right to stay at home, to remain idle and to take taxpayers' money while doing nothing with their lives—
      Ms Eagle: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too much into the hit parade and grunge, will he explain why the Bill treats all those who are unemployed as if they are part of the minority who are work shy about whom he is talking? Is that a fair attitude to take to the entire pool of the unemployed?
      Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to reply to that intervention. Young people who are motivated to train, to obtain jobs or to stay on in higher and further education can survive blissfully under these provisions. These provisions are intended for the small minority who do not wish to better their own lives. Anyone who is keen to motivate himself and take up reasonable training need not worry in the slightest about the proposals. That is the one thing that Labour Members do not understand. They cannot tell us how they would deal with the minority of people who prefer to remain idle at home wasting their lives at taxpayers' expense.
      Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important principle? The Opposition say that this is a vicious attack on young people. They claim to be the defender of young people. Establishing that is an absolute principle in their opposition to the Bill. Is it not immoral that the Labour party gives absolutely no indication of what it would do in the circumstances to put the matter right?
      Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a valuable point. I would go further: the Labour party will not even tell us today—in the unlikely event of it getting into Government—whether it would repeal the measures in the proposed legislation with which it strongly disagrees. Much rhetoric has floated across the Chamber, but Labour Members do not have the guts to tell us tonight whether they would repeal the measures set out in the Bill.
      It is important that we encourage our young people to make the best of their lives. They are our seed corn. We should invest in their lives for the sake of the nation and
      532
      for their own sake. The Labour party has offered nothing tonight to help young people in this country but has continued to undermine them.
      I strongly support the new clause and this measure.
      Mr. McCartney: On behalf of the Opposition, I shall take a few moments of the House's time before the Minister replies for the Government.
      I thank all my hon. Friends for the excellent contributions that they made following the devastating attacks by the Government in Committee. As in Committee, the Government have shown no concern for the position of young people. They have shown extreme callousness in dealing with these matters and an inability even to understand the extent of the problems faced by many vulnerable young people as a consequence of unemployment and displacement in their lives.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) made a professional and clinical exposure of Government failures in housing and employment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) highlighted the shambolic nature of the Government's knowledge of unemployed young people.
      The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has come to be known by Opposition Members as an absolute jobseeker—for a position on the Government Front Bench. One cannot think of any occasion when the hon. Gentleman has not been a supporter of the Government. Even when they fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, he is there. He is one of the faithful going down with the ship. In his contribution, he tried to equate the needs of young people in the 1990s with some spurious attack on trade unions in the 1960s. I speak as someone who was lucky enough in the 1960s to be able to have training in the private sector. I lived and worked in the private sector. It is interesting for children of the 1960s to remember that, when we left school on the Friday, we could start work on the Monday. In fact, over Saturday and Sunday I remember that I had two choices of apprenticeships: I could have been either an apprentice seamen or an electrician in the colliery.
      I decided to be an apprentice at sea. In the intervening period after leaving school, I trained as a seaman at the National Sea Training college at Gravesend. I had another job during that summer period—at a proper rate of pay, because it was a trade union-organised place. That was in 1967—a wonderful year as I remember, with flower power and all the rest of it.
      Today's young people are the first generation not to be guaranteed a training or job opportunity when they leave school. They are the first generation of people who are unable to be certain that they will advance in social and economic terms, unlike their parents or grandparents. That is the Government's responsibility. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North said that the measure was necessary to stop abuse, yet he gave no evidence, not a single case. How many cases have there been? What is the cost of the abuse? Ministers, with all the panoply of the civil service and two of the largest Government Departments—the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security—could not give us a single instance of abuse with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds. Not a single penny has been misused, yet they propose to undermine the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds.

      533
      As for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), not only was he patronising and full of cliches, but he continued where he left off in the Bill. He reminded me of something that Mae West once said: "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." Until tonight, I did not realise who she was speaking about. It is obviously the hon. Gentleman. He is the man who said that young people were living blissfully on £27.50. The hon. Gentleman, each and every lunchtime or evening, will spend more on a meal than we expect young people to live on for a week. That is the reality. He said that they should be looking for meaningful jobs.
      The Government have destroyed 3 million full-time jobs in the past 16 years. There have been two recessions in the lifetime of the Government. Some 40 per cent. of manufacturing industry has closed; 150,000 apprenticeships have been lost; and sackings in privatised industry have so far cost the taxpayer £1 billion in unemployment benefit—and the hon. Gentleman talks about meaningful jobs. After 16 years of Tory Government, he talked about the drug culture undermining young people. Thatcherite policies have led us to the crime and drug culture, denying opportunities to thousands of our young people.
      6.15 pm
      Ms Rachel Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has been directly responsible for encouraging the Government to cut 10,000 jobs from the Rosyth area by constantly calling for defence cuts to be made in Scotland and not in his part of England? That shows me that he is not, in fact, in favour of a United Kingdom but just wants everything centred on Plymouth.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman shows callous disregard to anyone seeking employment.
      The Minister herself has revealed again today not only callous indifference to the situation but the Government's sanctimonious view of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. For every year in which the Conservative Government have continued, there have been more and more "undeserving" poor. It is all an excuse to exclude people from the system. So far this year, benefit disqualifications have doubled to 113,000 because of inadequate job searches. It is interesting to note that the Economic and Social Research Council said that the problem is one not of a lack of commitment or keenness by young people but of insufficient jobs in training places being provided by the Government. That is the truth. The problem is simply that the Government do not care after 16 years about the future of our young people. For that reason, the Government will go down at the next election, and deservedly so, and we will have a Labour Government, who will invest in and have a commitment to all our young people.
      Miss Widdecombe: The worth of the new clause is proved by the utter feebleness of the debate from Opposition Front Benchers. First, they started by talking about 7,900 jobs that have been lost. Will they tell us, please, about the 1.9 million jobs into which people were placed last year? Will they tell us how many jobs have been created per new day? No, they want to talk only
      534
      about lost jobs. They want only to depress people, to trade on people's misery, for political advantage. We can always tell how well things are going by how glum and dismal the Opposition look.
      The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said that youth unemployment was about 20 per cent. Let us look at the very labour force survey that he used. Let us look at the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment. It includes, as he will know if he studies the survey more closely, many people who are in full-time education. If he looks at the latest figures for autumn 1994 in the same survey, he will see that only 8 per cent.—I repeat, 8 per cent.—of 16 and 17-year-olds were not in education, in jobs or in training. Furthermore, he tried to depress his constituents by saying that the Government, after the South Thames TEC had gone into liquidation, were making no effort to replace it or to cover the provision that it had made. He knows that that is not accurate. Indeed, were I not constrained by parliamentary tradition I might use a word other than "not accurate".
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) asked whether it was true that guidance had been issued saying that officers of the Benefits Agency or the Department of Employment may not raise the issue of whether a young person should apply for benefit. I am pleased to confirm that no such guidance has been issued, nor will it be. At present, some severe hardship payments are dealt with by the Benefits Agency. The agency has specialised staff to help young people to make their claims, and the careers service is under a contractual obligation to endeavour to identify potential benefit claimants and then refer them to the appropriate agency. The reverse of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is true; once again, an attempt to frighten the vulnerable simply will not work.
      The hon. Member for Northfield also asked whether it would count as "good cause" if a young person turned down a training place because the employer involved did not recognise a trade union. That is most unlikely to constitute good cause. If a trade dispute were in progress, we should probably take into account exactly the same considerations as we apply to adults in a different clause.
      The hon. Member for Makerfield said that our youth cohort study was based on a selective sample. In fact, it was based on responses to postal questionnaires from between 15,000 and 20,000 16 and 17-year-olds. Moreover, it was conducted on behalf of the Department of Employment and the Department for Education by Social and Community Planning Research. Is the hon. Gentleman impugning that body? If he is, he will have to refute—
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute! Sit down.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows full well that if the Minister, or any other hon. Member, does not give way he must resume his seat.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for containing this disorderly behaviour.

      535
      I was merely saying to the hon. Member for Makerfield that if he wished to impugn the veracity of the research of the body to which I referred, he would be impugning a good deal that he often prays in aid. I shall now give way to him.
      Mr. McCartney: Those whose veracity I am impugning are the hon. Lady and other Ministers. The fact is that, as Mr. Maples said, no one believes what they say any more.
      Miss Widdecombe: If that is all that the hon. Gentleman can say, it is clear that what he has said about our cohort survey has been utterly defeated. Moreover, the fact that he was forced to struggle in that way says something about the hopeless quality of the Opposition—a hopeless quality that we have observed throughout the debate.
      The hon. Gentleman told us that some young people could not make the seriousness of their position understood. He did not tell us that there were specially trained officers to assess all applications by 16 and 17-year-olds—officers attached to every branch of the Benefits Agency, who will be attached to jobcentres under the new rules. It is simply not true that, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, young people leaving care are denied benefit and left on the streets; it is not true that, as he told us, housing is not taken into account; it is not true that, as he told us so many times, we force people on to inadequate training schemes.
      Let us be clear about this. I repeat what I said earlier: 78 per cent. of trainees who complete their training go on to jobs, further education or training. That cannot be poor quality. The YT programme provides quality training to NVQ2 level, and 71 per cent. of trainees who complete their planned training in England and Wales obtain qualifications. Those are the facts, together with the fact that I have just mentioned: the cohort study showed that 78 per cent. of respondents considered their training either excellent or good.
      Young people themselves reject the Opposition's claim that training is inadequate. The Opposition's own ILO survey, to which the Trades Union Congress is so attached, rejects their claim that more young people are unemployed than we say. We have lower than average youth unemployment.
      The fact is that, in two hours—of which the hon. Member for Makerfield took nearly an hour—the Opposition have established not a single fact that would cause any rational person to reject the new clause. I urge the House to support it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 230.

      Division No. 113]

      [6.24 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bates, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      536

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Harris, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butler, Peter

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hendry, Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Day, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Key, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

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

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Legg, Barry

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Elletson, Harold

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lightbown, David

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Faber, David

      Lord, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forman, Nigel

      Maclean, David

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, Sir David

      French, Douglas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Gale, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      Gallie, Phil

      Marlow, Tony

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      537

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Nelson, Anthony

      Spring, Richard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stewart, Allan

      Norris, Steve

      Streeter, Gary

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sumberg, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Sweeney, Walter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thomason, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tracey, Richard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trend, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Richards, Rod

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Riddick, Graham

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Ward, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Watts, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wells, Bowen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Sackville, Tom

      Whittingdale, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wilshire, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Sims, Roger

      Yeo, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Dr. Liam Fox and

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mr. David Willetts.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Burden, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashton, Joe

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin-Walker, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Chidgey, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Barron, Kevin

      Church, Judith

      Battle, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clelland, David

      Benton, Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coffey, Ann

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Blunkett, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Boateng, Paul

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Keith

      Corston, Jean

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cousins, Jim

      538

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loyden, Eddie

      Darling, Alistair

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Macdonald, Calum

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

      McFall, John

      Denham, John

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dowd, Jim

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Maddock, Diana

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mandelson, Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Enright, Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Etherington, Bill

      Maxton, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Milburn, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Fraser, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Galloway, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Gapes, Mike

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Garrett, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mudie, George

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Gordon, Mildred

      Murphy, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Olner, Bill

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gunnell, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Hall, Mike

      Pearson, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Pike, Peter L

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Pope, Greg

      Henderson, Doug

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Heppell, John

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Prentice, Gordon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Hoey, Kate

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Radice, Giles

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoyle, Doug

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rendel, David

      Hutton, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Ingram, Adam

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jamieson, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jowell, Tessa

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Short, Clare

      Kennedy, Jane

      Simpson, Alan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Soley, Clive

      539

      Spearing, Nigel

      Turner, Dennis

      Spellar, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Watson, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wise, Audrey

      Straw, Jack

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. John Owen Jones and

      Touhig, Don

      Mr. John Cummings.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.37 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I dearly wish that, during the proceedings on the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, the shadow Chancellor had been present because, in their opposition to the Bill, Labour Members fell back on their usual recourse—to promise, to oppose and to table amendments that would cost money. Let us consider what they asked us to do, and then ask them whether they would undertake to do it.
      Labour Members wanted to change our rates of contribution, at a cost of £30 million. They wanted to reintroduce an age limit of 55, at a cost of £40 million. They wanted to carry back adult dependant increases, at a cost of £10 million. They wanted a disregard for earnings, at a cost of £15 million in jobseeker's allowance, £50 million in housing benefit and £10 million in council tax benefit—
      Mr. Kevin Barron: Rubbish.
      Miss Widdecombe: It would have been rubbish if we had accepted the amendments.
      Labour Members wanted to remove the waiting days for income-based JSA, at a cost of £40 million. They wanted to extend further education guided learning hours to 21 a week, at a cost of £40 million. They opposed savings of £180 million. That is the Labour party at its unreconstructed worst. Its answer to everything is, "Spend, spend, spend." When we ask whether the Labour party will do the spending, suddenly it has no policies. It opposes what we are doing, but has nothing to put in its place. At least the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is honest. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will the House quieten down a bit? I remind the Minister that speeches must deal with the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the provisions that we have introduced are in the Bill. The Labour party opposes them. The proposals that it would like to include would cost all those millions of pounds.
      I was congratulating the hon. Member for Rochdale on her honesty. She made a pledge that an incoming Liberal Government would restore the contribution from six
      540
      months to 12 months. She made other pledges to restore benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds. The only trouble is that there will never be a Liberal Government. Oh, the joys of irresponsibility, of being able to promise everything, and of knowing that one will never be called on to deliver a thing.
      The Bill provides for many winners, whom we never heard about. We did not hear the Opposition congratulate us on providing for 150,000 winners through the back-to-work bonus, for 120,000 winners through the national insurance contribution holiday, for 2,000 winners through the employment on trial scheme, for 50,000 winners through the £10 couples disregard, for 10,000 winners through national insurance credits for all work under 16 hours, and for even more winners through the 24-hour work rule. No, no, no—we heard nothing from Opposition Members about all those winners, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) welcomed them.
      The Bill provides a proper system whereby an agreement exists between the taxpayer and the person who takes benefits that the taxpayer pays for.
      Mr. Alan HowarthWill my hon. Friend give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I had not realised that my hon. Friend was trying to intervene. There was so much racket coming from the Opposition.
      Mr. Howarth: Of course I welcome the winners, as my hon. Friend describes them, and any advantages for unemployed people that emerge from the Bill. She catalogued a series of additional costs that might be incurred, which add up to some hundreds of millions of pounds. Will she confirm that, in consequence of the national insurance contributions increase that has been placed on employees, the Government will raise an extra £2.2 billion? Does she look forward to a world of benefit cuts and boot camps?
      Miss Widdecombe: I have made no such proposals for such a dismal world. My hon. Friend refers to the amounts raised in national insurance contributions, but he knows that the fund must be kept in balance and that we spend today what we collect today. He knows that it is a "pay as you go" fund, and that any Government must keep the fund in balance. He should welcome the prudence of the Government, who actually keep it in balance.
      I am looking forward not to a world, as my hon. Friend described it, of benefit cuts, but to a world of focused and targeted benefits for people in need. That is the sort of world we want to see, and that is proposed in the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the winners, which is a jolly sight more than the Opposition have done. I urge the House to support this entirely prudent, just and caring measure.
      6.42 pm
      Mr. Keith Bradley: Time is short, so I shall not indulge in the illogical rantings and ravings of the Minister. From the start, and throughout the passage of the Bill, the Labour party set out to scrutinise the legislation line by line. I should like to commend my hon. Friends on the diligence with which they have undertaken that operation.

      541
      I thank all the organisations throughout the country—citizens advice bureaux, disability groups, the Church Action on Poverty group, trade union groups, unemployment groups, and low-pay groups—that have expressed fear and concern about the measures. Without their help, we could not have scrutinised the Bill and represented people's needs as effectively as we did in Committee. It is sad, however, that, throughout our deliberations, the Government stubbornly refused to change any policy of substance, except to the detriment of the unemployed, especially the young unemployed. They will push the Bill through the House tonight.
      At the beginning of Committee stage, I said that Opposition Members would show that the main purpose of the legislation was to cut public expenditure, through the Government's continuing reductions in the social security budget and through reducing the amount of money available to unemployed people. Our deliberations have cruelly exposed that purpose.
      The Bill is part of an on-going process that the Government have undertaken, as we all know from the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994. We know that one cannot take £1.5 billion out of the social security budget without inflicting harm and misery on sick and disabled people. That will be the result of that Act.
      The Bill, which contains provisions on what is ironically called the jobseeker's allowance, does not create a single job. Instead, it inflicts further hardship on people without a job. Let us remember that the jobseeker's allowance is about undermining the contributory benefit system by cutting benefits from 12 to six months, and about forcing people on to means-tested benefit after a mere six months.
      As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) rightly said, that is being done at a time when national insurance contributions have increased from 9 to 10 per cent., resulting in a reported extra £2.2 billion for the Treasury. That is what we have—pay more and get less from the Government. That means more means-testing. It will especially affect people with savings, people who have lost their jobs and have redundancy payments, and people who have lost their jobs and have personal or industrial injury payments. They will be forced to use those benefits six months earlier and to have means-tested benefits. They will be forced into the poverty trap. Those are the consequences of the legislation.
      In our deliberations on the Bill, we made much of the plight of the disabled—we make no apology for that. I predict that the chaos and hardship that will arise from incapacity benefit when it is introduced on 13 April, and the interface that that will have with the Bill when it is enacted in 1996, will result in a major scandal. It will be similar to the Child Support Agency, scandal, but it will cause extra misery and hardship for sick and disabled people.
      Crucially, we have continually highlighted the fact that the Government expect people to take a job at whatever level of pay the Government believe is right. There is no lower level of pay. The Government are prepared to let people accept pay almost without an hourly rate. That is the real effect of the legislation. That is why we will continue to fight it in Parliament. That is why, after the next election, so many Conservative Members will be seeking jobs, and that is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.
      6.37 pm
      Ms Lynne: The Bill widens inequality in society. It will debar some people from receiving benefit, reduce benefit for others, and do nothing to alleviate the poverty trap. In the worst case scenario, it could cause more homelessness, more poverty and more despair. Why have the Government introduced it? It is to save the Treasury money. I am not against that, but it should not be done at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
      The unemployed are vulnerable. They feel that they are already at the bottom of the heap. They feel degraded and have low self-esteem. What do the Government do about that? They introduce the Jobseekers Bill and, more important, the jobseeker's agreement, supposedly to help people back into work. That builds on the restart scheme and on the humiliation that some people suffer when they go for restart interviews, especially older people who are interviewed by a young interviewer who ends up lecturing them about what they should do.
      Now we have the jobseeker's agreement. They can now lecture them about their appearance. I know that most of those interviewers will be good, but human nature dictates that some people will abuse that power. Whatever people have earned in the past, they will be forced to take a job after 13 weeks, no matter what pay is being offered. If they do not do so, they will end up with no money, which means more humiliation or even worse.
      Surely the Government cannot want that, or perhaps they do not know what it is like to be unemployed. Perhaps no Conservative Member has ever been unemployed or realised the sense of failure that it causes. All people should be treated with dignity and respect, whatever their circumstances.
      We need proper training for the staff who conduct the jobseekers' interviews. I asked on Second Reading and in a written question, how much money will be provided for training? We were told £71 million, but is that for overall training or just for disablement employment advisers? More money needs to be spent on training staff if the jobseeker's agreement is to work at all.
      We have already debated the shortcomings of the new arrangements for the 16 to 18-year-olds, but what about the 18 to 25-year-olds? I have never seen any sense in 18 to 25-year-olds on income support getting less than anyone else. How can a married couple, both aged 24 and with children, be expected to live on less than someone aged 25?
      Some people in those circumstances will have paid national insurance contributions for eight years, from the ages of 16 to 24. They are entitled to something in return, but the Government are reducing their benefit to £36.15. I do not think that any Conservative or Opposition Member could manage on that sum. Extra hardship will be caused to all those 18 to 25-year-olds, regardless of whether they paid national insurance contributions. If they did pay, they are entitled to something in return.
      The Government estimate that 250,000 people will be worse off and 90,000 will not qualify for means-tested benefit under the Bill, but what about the unemployed with savings? Those who have savings of more than £8,000 will receive nothing after six months, and those who have savings of between £3,000 and £8,000 will have their benefit reduced after six months. If someone is unemployed and has a working partner, that person will receive no jobseeker's allowance after six months.

      543
      Women will be the hardest hit, because they are more likely to have a partner in work. The cut from 12 to six months' contributory benefit is an absolute disgrace, and should be reversed.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady should vote Labour.
      Ms Lynne: No, because the Labour party has refused to say whether it would reverse the cut from 12 to six months.
      We debated on Report how disabled people will be disadvantaged. When the 220,000 people have come off incapacity benefit, they will go to the employment exchange or to the Employment Service, which will find it extremely difficult to cope. The Minister did not give a satisfactory reply to my questions yesterday on that subject. Even after our debates, no one is convinced by the Government's arguments.
      The Bill is a step in the wrong direction. We need proper back-to-work packages, proper training, proper incentives and, above all, proper jobs. We do not need this draconian measure, which is designed not to help the unemployed but to penalise them, even though the majority are unemployed through no fault of their own.
      6.52 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The objectives of the Bill, which I commend to the House, are to improve the operations of the labour market, to create jobs, to promote enterprise, to introduce a modern, streamlined system for delivering benefits, and to target revenues better.
      Mr. McCartney: And to save money.
      Mr. Evans: Yes, and to save money. The Opposition have talked about nothing but savage cuts, but the Bill should be considered in context as part of the Government's wider programme of job promotion. [Laughter.] Yes, the savings under the Bill when it is up and running will be £270 million a year, but the Budget package of £700 million-worth of incentives is the other side of the coin.
      I shall not weary the House at this hour with details of the gainers under this bundle of measures, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has clearly—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
      Mr. McCartney: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did the Minister say a "bundle" of measures or a "bungle" of measures?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
      Mr. Evans: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the back-to-work bonus of 150,000 gainers, the housing benefit run-on which will help people back into work, and the introduction of the child care disregard in family credit, but I end with this point: the national insurance contributions holiday, which will benefit 120,000 people.
      The national insurance contributions holiday was the one proposal that members of Labour's Front Bench welcomed. They not only accepted the principle but tabled amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to clause 23 to increase the number of beneficiaries from about120,000 to about
      544
      500,000. They had no doubt that that would be the effect of their proposals. They had no need of empirical studies as to the effect of that course on the labour market, but were satisfied by their own theoretical analysis, which happens to be right.
      If one lowers the cost to employers of employing labour, there is an incentive to employ more people but the converse of that principle, which inexorably follows in logic, is that, if one increases the cost to employers of employing labour, they can afford to employ fewer people.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is an extremely important distinction to be made between reducing the overhead costs of employing labour and cutting pay?
      Mr. Evans: For the purposes of work incentives, there is no distinction whatsoever—it comes out of the bottom line. If one has the same amount to spend on one's work force and is made to give them more of it, one can afford to employ fewer people.
      There is therefore a bizarre contradiction at the heart of Labour's objections to the Bill. The Labour party supports the national insurance contributions holiday but, at the same time, promotes the minimum wage. We heard that the minimum wage is, in effect, going to be the minimum prescribed sum for which anyone is allowed to work. We shall see the abolition of family credit, in effect, but Labour will not tell us what the minimum wage will be.
      Labour's critique of this part of the Bill, rather like its critique of the whole Bill, has been nothing but empty rhetoric and deception, a morally and intellectually bankrupt analysis with no coherence. Let us be clear that the Labour party's approach will simply create more unemployment.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 239.

      Division No. 114]

      [6.58 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Amess, David

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Butler, Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cash, William

      Batiste, Spencer

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bellingham, Henry

      Churchill, Mr

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Booth, Hartley

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Bowis, John

      Conway, Derek

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Brazier, Julian

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Couchman, James

      545

      Cran, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jopling, Rt Ron Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Legg, Barry

      Elletson, Harold

      Leigh, Edward

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lidington, David

      Evennett, David

      Lightbown, David

      Faber, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luff, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, Sir David

      French, Douglas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Gale, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      Gallie, Phil

      Marlow, Tony

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hague, William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Harris, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hendry, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Pickles, Eric

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Horam, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      546

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Thomason, Roy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Sackville, Tom

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tredinnick, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Trend, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Waterson, Nigel

      Soames, Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sproat, Iain

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stephen, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Stewart, Allan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Sweeney, Walter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Church, Judith

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Alton, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coffey, Ann

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cohen, Harry

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin-Walker, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dafis, Cynog

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bell, Stuart

      Darling, Alistair

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blunkett, David

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

      Boateng, Paul

      Denham, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Dixon, Don

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Donohoe, Brian H

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

      Dowd, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Burden, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Byers, Stephen

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Enright, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cann, Jamie

      Fisher, Mark

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Flynn, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foulkes, George

      547

      Fraser, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Galloway, George

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Gapes, Mike

      Jowell, Tessa

      Garrett, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      George, Bruce

      Keen, Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Khabra, Piara S

      Godsiff, Roger

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lewis, Terry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Litherland, Robert

      Graham, Thomas

      Livingstone, Ken

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Gunnell, John

      McAllion, John

      Hall, Mike

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Macdonald, Calum

      Harvey, Nick

      McFall, John

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      McKelvey, William

      Henderson, Doug

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Madden, Max

      Hoey, Kate

      Maddock, Diana

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Maxton, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hoyle, Doug

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Ingram, Adam

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jamieson, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      548

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Short, Clare

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Simpson, Alan

      Mudie, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Spearing, Nigel

      Olner, Bill

      Spellar, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Patchett, Terry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stott, Roger

      Pike, Peter L

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pope, Greg

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Touhig, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis

      Radice, Giles

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, Stuart

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Watson, Mike

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Andrew

      Reid, Dr John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wise, Audrey

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Eric Clarke and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Joe Benton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Civil Service
[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1993–94, on the Role of the Civil Service (House of Commons Paper No. 27), and The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change (Cm 2748), containing the Government's observations thereon.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
7.8 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt):"The British Civil Service is a great national asset. Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors."
Those are not only my views; those are the words of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service in November's report. That report demonstrated the strength of the consensus between the Government and the Select Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and their colleagues on having produced such a valuable report.
The civil service plays a vital part in underpinning the constitution and in sustaining good government in this country. It always has, and it always will. The important challenge facing us all is to retain and strengthen the traditional principles that have made the Westminster model the envy of the world—independence, impartiality, integrity, objectivity, and permanence—while at the same time making the changes necessary to bring our system into the 21st century.
That will require a combination of continuity and change. That is why, eight months ago, my predecessor published the White Paper, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", which was the first Government document since the Fulton report, more than 25 years ago, to address the role and future of the civil service as a whole. It built on ideas stretching back to the great Victorian reformers, Northcote and Trevelyan. The emphasis on accountable management and on developing the professional skills of civil servants can be found in Fulton, and has been carried forward strongly through the initiatives of the Government since 1979.
Those twin themes—continuity and change—reflect the need for continuity in the long-standing traditions of the civil service, and also the need for the service, like other large organisations, to change in order to improve performance. In the White Paper, the Government strongly reaffirmed their commitment to the established values of the service, which include—as well as integrity and political impartiality—recruitment through fair and open competition, selection and promotion on merit, and accountability through Ministers to Parliament.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee said of those values:
"They are as important today as in the last century; their importance should not diminish in the next … These values reflect rather than inhibit the jobs to be done. They are relevant to civil servants serving the public as well as to those serving Ministers directly. They can and should act as a unifying force for the whole Civil Service."
The Government's further Command Paper, published in January this year, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", accepted most of the Treasury and Civil Service
550
Committee's conclusions and recommendations, in particular the Committee's proposals for a new civil service code and for a new independent avenue of appeal to the civil service commissioners.
With Her Majesty's approval, the appointment of Michael Bett as the new First Civil Service Commissioner was announced last week, following open competition. I had my first formal meeting with him earlier today, and he will oversee the enhanced responsibilities of the commissioners for interpreting the principles of fair and open competition for all civil service recruitment.
The commissioners will publish a recruitment code for Departments and agencies, and will audit their performance against it, and will approve all appointments from outside to the senior civil service. The First Civil Service Commissioner will attend the senior appointments selection committee, which is chaired by the head of the home civil service. He will be able to comment on senior selection processes in the commissioners' annual report.
The Government are now consulting civil servants and the civil service unions on the code. We shall also take into account any further comments from the Select Committee, and we will of course listen carefully to all contributions made in the debate.
Legislation is not necessary to introduce the code or the new functions of the civil service commissioners. Action under the prerogative can include implementation of the code once consultation is complete, and the new role of the commissioners can be created through a revised Order in Council. But any such action would be without prejudice to the possibility of legislation thereafter. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have an open mind about legislation. We set out our views in "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", but it may be worth amplifying them for the benefit of the House.
Legislation, as the Select Committee itself acknowledged, would need to be narrowly based. It would cover the powers of the civil service commissioners concerning selection for appointment to the home civil service and the diplomatic service, their powers to investigate complaints arising from the civil service code, and their power to report to Parliament on the number, nature, and outcome of complaints put to them.
Such legislation would also cover the powers of the Minister responsible for the civil service, in respect of terms and conditions in the home civil service—and, of course, the corresponding powers of the Foreign Secretary—and would introduce a new power for the Minister to issue the civil service code. If the code had already been issued the legislation would confirm it. Legislation would also include a power to make orders to amend it, which would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
I am, however, very cautious about opening up the possibility of change in the constitutional position of the civil service. The Government would consider the introduction of a Bill only if we were satisfied that the proposed legislation would sustain the existing constitutional position, retain the flexibility of existing arrangements for regulating the terms and conditions of civil servants, and preserve the current position of civil servants under general employment law.
I would also want to be satisfied that such legislation would be supported in all parts of the House. As the hon. Member for Durham, North will know, I have already

551
invited Opposition parties to take part in discussions, and I hope that in the debate we shall be able to explore some of the important issues that lie before us.
The values of the civil service are vital, not only in a constitutional sense but to ensure that all our citizens are treated equitably under the law. The integrity and objectivity of the service help to ensure that the right decisions are taken, and that those decisions are implemented honestly and without wasting taxpayers' money. Selection and promotion on merit are crucial principles in support of any effective organisation. The values of the civil service go hand in hand with effectiveness and efficiency.
It is the Government's duty to obtain the best possible value for every penny of public money handled through the civil service. That means sustaining the traditional values but also adopting new best-practice techniques to help to increase the quality of service to the citizen, and the efficiency of that service.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend at this early stage in his speech, but he has already said how important it would be to ensure that any legislation did not change the constitutional position of the civil service. He then described the characteristics and merits of our civil service, which are indeed terrific. May I ask him, for the benefit of the House, how he defines the constitutional position of the civil service? Even after taking part in the preparation of the Select Committee report, I am still slightly unclear about that. What is the Government's view?
Mr. Hunt: I had hoped that, for the benefit of my hon. Friend and others, I had set that out in the earlier part of my speech. The constitutional position of the civil service rests on the traditional principles of independence—that is fundamental—impartiality, integrity and honesty, selection and promotion on merit, and permanence. The constitutional position is reflected in those key principles. I said that I welcomed what the Select Committee had said, so clearly I share the view that it is vital that the traditional principles be preserved.
A possible change to the constitutional position comes whenever legislation is proposed in this House, because it is open to hon. Members on both sides of the House to propose amendments. One can envisage a situation in which some of those amendments might have a fundamental effect on the constitutional position that I have set out.
That is my concern, but some of those fears may be put to rest during our discussions with Opposition parties. Widespread consultation can provide one with a feel for the way in which the House, the civil servants and the unions wish to proceed. One can make a judgment about whether any legislation would affect the constitutional position.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Would not the values, traditions, independence and integrity of the civil service have been more effectively upheld if the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner had gone to somebody from the civil service who was steeped in the service's traditions and ethos, rather than to somebody from the private sector, whose qualifications seem to be a string of public and quango appointments in the gift of the Government, together with his long-standing support for the Conservative party?
Mr. Hunt: I reject the hon. Gentleman's description and analysis of the new First Civil Service Commissioner, and I have confidence that Michael Bett will uphold the traditional principles of the civil service. He has demonstrated that in the range of duties and responsibilities which he has carried out, and I am aware of the extensive public service work which forms part of his curriculum vitae. I sure that he will uphold the traditional values which I have just outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
Paragraph 1 of the proposed new civil service code states:
"The constitutional and practical role of the Civil Service is, with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, to assist the duly constituted Government, of whatever political complexion, in formulating policies of the Government, carrying out decisions of the Government and administering services for which the Government is responsible".
That provides the remainder of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will reflect on the comments he has made, because it has been my experience that Mr. Bett is respected by Members on both sides of the House for his impartiality.
The Government want to see sustained improvement in the administration of the civil service, and intend to achieve that by building on the approaches pioneered in the next steps initiative which we launched in 1988, and the citizens charter and "Competing for Quality" White Papers, published three years later. That means systems appropriate to the end of the 20th century, better management information, resource accounting, delegation to the right level, clear objectives, annual targets, the management of performance, a focus on quality and service to the customer.
From April 1996, individual Departments will have responsibility for implementing their own systems of pay and grading for their staff, and those systems will be suited to their particular needs. Beginning this April, Departments will have responsibility for drawing up their own three-year efficiency plans, which will incorporate a wide range of efficiency measures.
The efficiency plans will build on the "competing for quality" programme, which has realised savings averaging 20 per cent.—over £400 million a year—with no reduction in the quality of service, and indeed with improved service in one third of cases. Competition and new opportunities for the private sector have provided a real spur to increased efficiency right across the civil service.
The focus on quality and service to the customer are at the heart of the citizens charter. The charter aims to raise standards of service and increase the responsiveness of Government. The recent changes in the structure of the civil service are tailor-made to meet those objectives. The creation of agencies under the "next steps" initiative has devolved responsibility for the executive service functions of Government, from remote offices in Whitehall to those who deal face to face with the general public on a daily basis.
That is where the public need high-quality service, and that is where the new structure of the civil service enables it to be provided. All agencies which directly serve the public already have, or are developing, charter standard

553
statements, so that people know what service they have a right to expect from Government, and what they can do about it if that service is not delivered.
It may not sound revolutionary that one can now take one's driving test on a Saturday morning and pay for it by credit card, but ordinary people asked for the change and are benefiting from it. The introduction of a tax helpline may not seem very significant until it is used to solve a problem, and all for the cost of a local telephone call, no matter where one is in the country. The one-stop service being introduced by the Benefits Agency will not mean much to those who have never visited a benefits office, but the people who count—the customers and claimants—will see a real improvement.
There are now 102 agencies in the civil service, including the revenue departments, which run on next steps lines. Some 62 per cent. of civil servants—more than 350,000 staff—work in "next steps" organisations.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will at some stage take the opportunity to deal with the issue of impartiality in more detail. As a member of the Select Committee dealing with that issue, I am aware that we brought Sir Robin Butler back to give further evidence.
The House will be aware that Conservative members of the Committee asked Sir Robin about a number of matters: first, the way in which 80 to 100 amendments were given by civil servants to various Back-Bench Members to wreck a Bill; secondly, the way in which Sir Robin Butler was involved in various investigations—Members on both sides of the Select Committee questioned whether he should have been involved in those; and, thirdly, the involvement of civil servants in what appears on the face of it to be a Cabinet Committee with a political, rather than governmental, objective.
Mr. Hunt: I intended to come to that matter later in my speech. I am in some difficulty, because I understand that the Select Committee is still considering the matter, and at some stage it will produce a report. The Select Committee is at liberty to call for any evidence that it wishes to consider, and I am not too sure whether I should start evolving a response to some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I can say that I regard the traditional principle of impartiality to be fundamental to the future of the civil service, and it is a part of the duty of all Governments to ensure that that traditional principle is upheld. I shall return to one or two of the specific points which the hon. Gentleman made a little later, but I hope that my answer will reassure him.
Mr. Kevin McNamara indicated dissent.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I follow the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) has made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no civil servant will be employed in any form of political work associated with the new Cabinet Committee appointed to look for banana skins in the run-up to the next election?
Mr. Hunt: I was going to come to that in a moment, but of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that civil
554
servants are well aware of the need to retain their independence and political impartiality. However, civil servants have been dealing with the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy for as long as I can remember.
To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) about the First Civil Service Commissioner and whether he should have been a civil servant, it is worth noting that the Select Committee favoured civil service commissioners who were not serving civil servants, and that the commissioners should be appointed from a wide range of backgrounds. I hope and believe that we have responded to the tenor of the Select Committee's recommendations.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) about the new Cabinet Committee, when I was appointed to my present position, the Prime Minister asked me to take special responsibility for the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. I was also made chairman of seven Cabinet Committees, and I sit on nine other Cabinet Committees. I have been discussing with the Prime Minister what further steps might appropriately be taken to improve co-ordination and presentation, and I concluded that it would help to set up a new Cabinet Committee with a specific remit to undertake that work. The Prime Minister accepted my advice, and asked me to chair it.
The new Committee will provide a forum in which the relevant issues, right across government, can be addressed. It is a Committee of Ministers charged with co-ordinating and presenting the policies of the elected Government of the day and is serviced by civil servants. As part of the present Government's open government policy, the membership and terms of reference of ministerial Committees of the Cabinet are now published and updated regularly, so when a new Committee is established, unlike in previous Administrations, the Prime Minister now naturally informs Parliament, and that is what has happened in this case.
Mr. Mandelson: Will the Chancellor confirm that the membership of that Committee includes the chairman of the Conservative party? Is it a proper function of civil servants to spend their time cleaning up after him?
Mr. Hunt: Without being drawn into the nonsense in the hon. Gentleman's question, may I explain that the Cabinet Minister without portfolio sits on the Committee in his role as a Minister? He is a member of eight other Cabinet Committees.
This Committee consists of myself, in my capacity as Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government's policy as a whole; the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal, who are leaders of their respective Houses of Parliament with responsibilities for handling the Government's parliamentary business, which are highly relevant to the new Committee's work; and the Minister without portfolio, who has a specific role in which he works closely with me to help co-ordinate and formulate Government policy and its delivery. Nothing could be simpler.
Under this Government, for the first time ever, those facts are made public and, as soon as we have a Cabinet Committee, the public are informed of its membership and terms of reference. This is the most open Government in the history of this country, because, for the first time, a

555
range of information that used to be behind the scenes, particularly under previous Labour Governments, is all now made public and open.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee pronounced a verdict on "next steps" which is worth quoting. It described "next steps" as
"the single most successful Civil Service reform programme of recent decades",
and added:
"We believe that Next Steps agencies represent a significant improvement in the organisation of Government and that any future Government will want to maintain them".
Mr. Giles Radice: I entirely agree that we said that—it has certainly been my position—but we also said that "next steps" should not be seen as a staging post to privatisation. Will the Minister confirm that he accepts our proposals on that?
Mr. Hunt: I have already made the Government's position clear in our published response to the Committee's report. The foundation of the Government's position is to ask, first, whether the job in question should be done by the Government at all. If not, privatisation is an option that clearly presents itself. What I am now talking about is when the Government decide that the job in question should be done by the Government but that it would be most appropriate and effective for it to be done by a "next steps" agency.
Just recently, in the first open competition for a Permanent Secretary post in a Department of state, the job of leading the Department of Employment went to an agency chief executive—moreover, one who had been appointed to that agency post from outside the civil service following an earlier open competition. In many ways, that symbolises the coming of age of the "next steps" initiative.
The setting-up of "next steps" agencies is, in itself, a valuable process. In progressing the initiative, there has been a thorough examination of every executive function in the Government. The "prior options" test, looking at the case for abolition, privatisation, strategic contracting out, and market testing, ensures that the Government undertake tasks that properly belong to them.
As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), having determined the answer to that question, the next stage is to ensure that the Government perform those tasks to the best of their ability in organisations with the right structures, skills, and attitudes.
The Government must stick to their core tasks, deliver them to a high standard, and carry them out within tight running cost controls. The plans announced in last November's Budget mean that total cash spending in Departments will be held at the same level in 1997–98 as in 1993–94, which implies a 10 per cent. cut in real terms. That is clear and unambiguous proof of the Government's commitment to continuing improvements in efficiency.
These are, without question, challenging times for the civil service, but the civil service is responding. The changes that we have brought about are designed to make it responsive and flexible. That is the sort of civil service that we shall need for the next century.
I believe that civil servants retain the public service ethos that is their fundamental strength. The taxpayer pays their salary and civil servants want the taxpayer to get
556
value for money. Civil servants want more responsibility. They want to provide the best possible service to the customer; to be efficient; and to be paid according to how well they perform, not how long they have been in a job.
The whole principle of continuity and change have produced a civil service reform that is an outstanding British success story, which will help equip the United Kingdom for the challenges of the 21st century. The Government have built on the enduring values and firm foundations of the civil service, creating more flexible and efficient structures in which staff can work to the best of their ability and provide a high-quality service to the people of the nation.
Stewardship of the civil service is a vital task. I submit to the House that, judged against any standard, the Government have carried out that task responsibly, effectively, and well.
7.37 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner. I hope that the practice will continue and be extended to all senior appointments to the civil service and heads of significant agencies. After all, it will be standard practice for such appointments after 1 January 1996, as we approach the general election, on the basis of precedent.
Secondly, we support the establishment of the MBA course for civil servants—an important step forward—which is to be developed at the Imperial College school of management in London. Although that is a welcome step, the question of establishing the British equivalent of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration will continue and still has many arguments in its favour.
Thirdly, we welcome the tone of the letter that the Chancellor recently sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about procedures to be followed on the code of practice for the civil service. Subject to the usual caveats, we shall do all that we can to help to achieve an agreed legislative framework for the proposed code for the civil service and ensure that it is in the legislative programme for the next Session. The Chancellor said in his letter to my hon. Friend:
"I shall of course let you know in due course of the outcome of consultation within the Civil Service, and would fully understand if you did not want to give a final reaction to proposals for legislation until those consultations have been completed."
That would be precisely our position. It would not prevent us from chatting in the meantime.
There is still a need to grapple with two problems: the relationship of civil servants to Parliament and the House especially, and the problems of the public interest. I hope that those problems can be resolved. The Nolan inquiry and, more especially, the Scott inquiry will doubtless provide some helpful guidance on those matters, but they should not be allowed to prevent the introduction of the legislative framework.
I must add the congratulations of the Labour party to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee, its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), and his colleagues, who, by the strength of their arguments, persuaded the Government of the value not only of a civil service code, but of a statutory one.

557
We now need to turn our attention to how best to secure the values that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee rightly identified as the unifying features of the British civil service—impartiality, integrity, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability.
In the past 15 years, the British civil service has undergone a period of radical change. Collectively, market testing, agency creation and privatisation have led to the fragmentation of the public service ethos. Although we are pleased with the Government's change of mind on the civil service code, we believe that they must now also recognise the way in which the civil service is being splintered and its essential values dissipated.
No one denies the integrity of civil servants, but what chance do our civil servants have to show their integrity when morale is so low? I do not see the picture of the civil service and its members as painted by the Chancellor today.
Despite the fact that the Government rejected the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee's request for a civil service staff attitude survey, the Treasury nevertheless conducted its own survey in 1994. Sixty-nine per cent. of Treasury staff said that morale was poor, and only 16 per cent. felt that the Department was well managed.
Such is the contempt of the Treasury for its employees that during the recent downsizing—what a charming euphemism for sacking—of the deputy secretary grade in the Treasury, an official was reported in the Daily Mail as saying patronisingly:
"It is unlikely they are going to the best-paid jobs in the City—if they were that good we wouldn't have let them go"—
and the Government wonder why morale is so low in the Treasury, when it denigrates its own employees whose responsible jobs were to supervise the spending in other Departments.
That statement was made shortly after the reported massive overspend and confusion in the Ministry of Defence, in relation to its defence contracts and the handling of its properties. Now there is no one in the Treasury who will supervise the MOD in the handling of such affairs.
Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman should consider his facts more closely. I think that he will find, if he does, that the considerable manpower reductions that are proposed in the Treasury, following Sir Terry Burns' recent report, are almost all to be achieved on the basis of natural wastage, hence with the co-operation of the people concerned.
Mr. McNamara: That was not the impression that I received when speaking to some of the people involved and their representatives. It may be achieved voluntarily in the long run, but there are different ways of achieving voluntary redundancies, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. I do not think that the civil service is any different from any other employer in achieving voluntary redundancies.
Morale is low not only in Whitehall, nor are all civil servants to be found there. Each day, for the thousands of civil servants who work outside Whitehall, the outlook has rarely been bleaker. Pity the poor civil servants who, in employment offices throughout the country, will have
558
to change their whole mode of meeting and talking to the public as they seek to enforce the results of today's mass vote on the Jobseekers Bill.
The increase in casualisation, the decline of promotion and career prospects, the minimal pay increases that civil servants have been receiving and the fervour with which Ministers have introduced large-scale market testing and plans for privatisation—some of them without even undertaking market testing—have left the great majority of civil servants feeling very insecure and worried about their future.
The Chancellor's blanket decision in the most recent Budget to cut numbers in the civil service by 10 per cent. regardless of the role, size or responsibility of tasks, shows the cavalier attitude that the Government display to the civil service as a whole and to individuals in particular. That 10 per cent. cut is a 10 per cent. cut in jobs because that is the most expensive element in the civil service.
Such arrogance has also recently been displayed in the Department of Employment, where the Secretary of State enjoined his Department not to employ temporarily anyone for more than 51 weeks, lest they gain employment rights. By acts such as that, the Government have thrown a blanket of fear across the whole of the civil service, but they are also setting a shocking example to private employers.
The current Conservative period in office began with the Government abolishing the fair wages resolution of the House, continued by abolishing wages councils and ends with the current Secretary of State for Employment setting standards from his own Department for the worst employers—a great change from the Churchillian tradition that used to emanate at one time from the Department of Employment and the way in which the Government then regarded their servants.
In order to cope with that Government-instilled fear, civil servants are forced to sacrifice objectivity. The Government's White Paper, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", outlines the introduction of individual contracts for senior civil servants at grade 5 and above. In such a job environment, where the proposed employer is the appropriate Secretary of State, how objective can employees be with their policy advice, especially if they know that every word that they say could be used against them in future contract renewal negotiations?
To avoid the risks of politicisation of the senior civil service, such contracts should at least be regulated by an independent or quasi-independent organisation. We are aware of the role that the Secretary of State envisages for the First Civil Service Commissioner. We await the outcome.
Further, there continues to be no explanation from the Government of the way in which they intend to resolve the constitutional dilemma of having a contract for civil servants with terms set out, including notice periods in the event of redundancy and dismissal, yet at the same time the Department retaining the royal prerogative whereby the Crown can dismiss at will.
Not only will senior civil servants have their own special pay arrangements, but, as the Chancellor said, so will all civil servants in every Department by 1 April 1995. Such pay delegation leads to more division of the civil service. National pay bargaining has served the civil service extremely well, underpinning the concept and practice of a

559
national unified civil service. Each year, approximately 40 officials in the Treasury effectively manage the national pay bargaining process of 500,000 people.
Ministers now mistakenly believe that by pay delegation they can offer greater scope for savings on running costs by keeping salaries as small as possible. In reality, after all the gloss has gone, the Treasury will retain financial control of the civil service pay bill. Why the stupid delegation? That delegation will serve to provide little more than a thin veneer of superficial control of the parts of the civil service with pay delegation.
Last year, the pay deals in delegated parts of the civil service were remarkably similar to the national pay agreement of 2.2 per cent., yet the cost of those parallel deals is evidenced by the fact that more than 3,000 people have taken courses at Sunningdale to learn bargaining procedures in the new Departments and agencies, and as many as 200 pay bodies will be needed to administer the various departmental and agency pay systems—3,000 people, when 40 did it in the past. There were four main negotiated settlements, but now we shall have 200. The Government call that less bureaucratic and more efficient. It is rubbish; and that from a Government who extol the virtues of efficiency.
The Government's means of efficiency—market testing, contracting out and privatisation—have eroded the civil service values of selection and promotion based on merit. Successful agencies, such as the Chessington Computer Centre and the Insolvency Service Agency, which, respectively, administer the Government payroll and investigate the affairs of bankrupts, and meet their yearly targets and beat off all private sector competition, are to be rewarded with privatisation. Since its creation in 1993, Chessington has outperformed all its private sector competitors. A high-quality service such as Chessington should be valued by, and retained in, the public sector, not primed for privatisation in order to fund tax cuts before the next election. The irony is that Chessington will possibly be sold to one of the private companies that it has regularly beaten in competition.
We believe in rewarding the agencies' hard work not by privatising them, but by keeping them in the public sector, serving the public good and setting an example to the private sector of the smooth and efficient delivery of service to the public. But the pace of reform is causing the fifth essential feature of the civil service—accountability—to be left behind. If one allows agencies such as Chessington and the insolvency service to leave the Government via privatisation, the existing accountability arrangements no longer suffice. The Government do not seem to have taken that on board or to have introduced appropriate procedures for it yet.
In the case of the Prison Service, accountability for mistakes saw the buck pass from the Home Secretary to the head of the Prison Service to the prison officers and, then, to the IRA for daring to try to escape. That is a dangerous precedent, and it happens not only in the Prison Service. What a shambles the Child Support Agency was, but the Minister with responsibility again came up smelling like roses, just like the Home Secretary. They are escaping scot free from what should be their proper responsibility.
We are further worried about the Government's intention to implement a trial contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation to private sector lawyers, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
560
Significantly, he made the announcement to the European Forum rather than the civil service or the House. The European Forum has been touting on behalf of some private sector lawyers for the work for some years. Private industry will draft some of the most politically controversial and market and price-sensitive legislation. One can only conclude that the Chancellor came up with that idea when suffering from mental and physical exhaustion after his efforts to create a new steel industry in Consett and build new nappy factories.
There are serious conflicts of interest in lawyers' chambers and solicitors' firms to be resolved. Private law firms will almost certainly use the trial period as a loss leader. Civil service lawyers are highly qualified and highly intelligent, but are paid only between one third and one half of what lawyers in the City can expect. Any widespread contracting out of the drafting of legislation will lead to a significant exodus of senior civil service lawyers to more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. The expertise of the most experienced and able draftsmen will be lost, not only to this Government but, more significantly, to any incoming Administration. There is a growing fear that, despite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's fine words, the Government's policies towards the civil service will make it increasingly difficult for an incoming Labour Government, elected on a popular mandate, to have the resources to legislate, implement and administer policy effectively.
The five unifying features of the civil service are threatened by the incessant drive for dogmatic change. I conclude by stressing a sixth feature: flexibility, which was also mentioned by the Chancellor. Flexibility is not a value, but a necessary quality of any organisation at the end of this millennium—especially in the increasingly vital sphere of information technology, its control and its use.
Information systems are, or should be, central to the operations of Government, Departments and agencies. Under market testing, those information systems are being sold to private sector companies. The information technology operations of the Inland Revenue and the Department of Transport have been sold to the same company, Electronic Data Systems. The Inland Revenue contract is worth £1 billion over 10 years. Electronic Data Systems offered the lowest tender, thereby winning a valuable prize—the Inland Revenue computer systems were admired throughout the Government and by many foreign Governments.
Now, the National Audit Office has identified 43 risk factors in the Inland Revenue contract. If EDS were to fail, it is estimated that to reconstitute the in-house organisation could take up to five years and cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. EDS is excluded from liability for consequential loss arising from a breakdown in computer service. That means that the Inland Revenue cannot recover from EDS lost tax revenue or interest payments that it may be required to make on delayed tax refunds. What sort of contract is it when someone cannot receive damages when his partner fails to deliver the service that he said he would? That policy comes from a Government of business men.
The Inland Revenue runs the risk of losing control of its information systems. It will be virtually impossible for the small contract management team that remains to keep abreast of the constantly changing world of information technology or to have the knowledge to utilise it. The

561
ability to change policy now depends on technological infrastructures. We have already seen that with the concern expressed by some members of the Inland Revenue about the structure of the EDS contract. The Government will rely on EDS to tell them what it is prepared to provide, and it will not necessarily answer to Government needs. The Inland Revenue's current plans to computerise tax returns depend upon EDS's design and supply of the relevant equipment by 1997. EDS is currently deciding whether it can meet that deadline successfully, under the terms of the contract. The Inland Revenue must wait, twiddling its thumbs, for the decision.
Now, on top of all that, the Government are considering whether to make another contract with EDS to control the computerised identity database that will cover the entire population and could be tied to a national identity card scheme. The question immediately arises whether the Government should place so much trust in one company that claims in its battle honours the botched Student Loans Company's computer systems contract. Control of that company will not be in this country or even in the European Union, but in the United States of America. The company will be subject to American legislation.
If there were to be a breakdown in the contract or a failure to renew, the Inland Revenue would be at the mercy of EDS and any other private companies that may have some of the knowledge. None of the control will be in this country. The Government have surrendered their responsibility abroad. What does that mean? Government by contract can lead to loss of flexibility and of the ability of the civil service to react to immediate events.
The Opposition would not argue that all Departments and agencies should be building their own information systems. But when we look to private sector expertise, we must recognise the difficulties in separating completely one from the other, policy formation, information technology, policy delivery and policy supervision. Government agencies must retain control of the strategic elements of their information technology and the technological know-how to be intelligent customers. The Government are running down that ability within the civil service until eventually it will be lost.
Privatisations such as those in the Inland Revenue and the Department of Transport are being carried out by the Government in the name of private sector practice. Yet few private sector companies would enter into contracts of that scale and lose their core abilities. Contracting out should be a management tool that enhances flexibility. But under market testing it has been used as an institutional dogma that engenders rigidity in what future Governments will be able to do. It is not the reforms themselves—"next steps", market testing and pay reform—that are endangering the essential qualities of the civil service, although one can raise all sorts of questions about them. It is the particular way in which they are being carried out.
Decentralisation is being implemented in a centralised manner at a pace that is leaving vital features behind and causing the Government to lose control. We must understand the effect that pay reform and job insecurity are having on civil service morale in order that impartiality, objectivity and integrity may be restored. We
562
must select and promote on merit rather than on the principle that private is synonymous with good and public is synonymous with bad.
We need a revised framework of accountability for a reformed civil service that is not so dependent on the illusory distinction between policy and administration. The Cabinet Secretary tried to create that distinction and the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Security sought to take advantage of it. We must establish a creative balance between public and private provision, resisting the temptations of cut-price options with hidden long-term implications and recognising that government by contract can lead to increased risk and loss of flexibility. We do not want 20,000 civil servants in Westminster writing contracts that are dictated by the would-be service providers.
We must pull back from the brink of hollow government and restore the civil service as a national asset. The Chancellor's remarks about the civil service being a national asset were laughable when, by their policies, the Government are demonstrating that they are the biggest asset stripper in the land.
8.1 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is quite like old times for me to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), although on this occasion I am not following him in wearing a tie colour coded in orange and green. As we have disagreed before, I am sure that he will not mind my doing so again on the subject of pay delegation.
As, among other things, Customs and Excise Minister, I would spend one day in six weeks in the field. I had the opportunity to talk with civil servants during the day and it was my experience that, south of Watford, they wished to discuss only pay but, north of Watford, they did not raise the subject at all.
I am taking part in the debate primarily to deliver a personal paean of praise and a vote of thanks. Although the late Nick Ridley of enchanting memory used to say that the most confidential place to say something was the Floor of the House of Commons, I am delighted to offer both paean and appreciation in so public a forum.
I served in five Government Departments over 15 years, if one includes the Whips Office, and I pay the utmost praise to the service that I received from civil servants in each and every one of those Departments. Those men and women were knowledgeable, diligent, agreeable, honourable and wholly devoted to the public weal. It was a pleasure to be a visiting player in their team. Many of them are employed in my constituency and, as a master of business administration, I welcome others to that state.
The most vivid index of their collective quality is the compliment paid by the last Secretary General of the European Commission, who was French. We are so often told, in Sterne's phrase, that they order these things better in France, so it is a delight to record the verdict of that long-serving French fonctionnaire: that, of all the civil service machines in the Union that interfaced with Brussels, the British was the best. It took a cross-Whitehall trawl on policy issues before a debate took place in Brussels in order to determine what was best for Her Majesty's Government as a whole. In many other capitals it was simply left to the lead Department to decide on a policy.

563
The proof of that pudding is the speed with which we implement EU directives and the infrequency with which we are taken to the European Court. In other capitals, the debate often begins only after the Council of Ministers has made up its mind.
Lest I should be thought purblind in a Panglossian manner, I remark in passing—as evidence that parts of the state of Denmark still require improvement—that, while I acknowledge that the instance occurred a decade ago, the worst spelling, punctuation and grammar of my experience occurred ironically in what was then the Department of Education and Science. The spirits of Chaucer and Rabbie Burns can rest easy in the knowledge that the most consistent good examples of those literary disciplines occurred in their old Department of Customs and Excise. In this case, I am perhaps being a little unfair to the Northern Ireland civil service; but my readings therein were diluted by the Northern Ireland Office. Perhaps Trollope can rest easy also.
My slender credentials for the debate include an unlikely one. The fact that my great granduncle served in this House with Stafford Northcote is less germane than the fact that my father shared rooms at Oxford with John Fulton of the Fulton report, at whose knee I therefore partly grew up. However, I served for four years in the late 1980s as Treasury Minister responsible for civil service pay and conditions and I was likewise responsible for some of the wider efficiency initiatives in the public service.
Without washing red tape in public, I admit that some of those initiatives were perhaps a little overdue. In one purchasing episode—where it had been assumed for years that costs rose with the inflationary tide—I salute the official who went to see for himself and inferred from the ubiquity of BMWs in the suppliers' car park that perhaps in that area of industrial activity the technology was moving in a deflationary direction.
The fact that the reforms have been spread over more than a decade has softened the process of change. Commercial bankers, like civil servants, had grown up in careers where it was assumed that there was a berth for life, with all the attendant industrial relations implications for pay and conditions. The implicit breaking of that contract, which occurred a decade earlier for bankers than for civil servants, came as a shock.
I can still recall the jejune embarrassment of the first essays in pay flexibility. But Departments learnt quickly, as they could soon be on the receiving end of another Department's unthinking ineptitude—I refer to the events of 10 years ago. With regard to civil service pay policy, I always found it easier to identify statistics for attraction and retention rather than for motivation.
Where change does not occur—as is recognised in paragraph 85 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report and in paragraph 6 of the Government's response—is in the civil service's commitment to Governments of different hues. The late Dick Crossman used to inveigh against the capacity of civil servants to thwart his plans or to seek to do so. There have been echoes of him in the past 15 years and no doubt they will continue into the next century.
Like the perennial complaint by Governments of all colours that the BBC is biased against them, even-handed scepticism across all parties must be evidence that all is reasonably well in this area of our constitution. Leaving aside the ingrained British habit of always thinking of
564
reasons for not doing something and leaving aside the great Sam Rayburn's memorable remark that the three wisest words in the English language are "wait a minute", it is the duty of civil servants to draw attention to all the disadvantages of a ministerial policy and to avoid those two terrible embarrassments for any Minister: changing policy in a hurry in mid-stream; and being caught at the Dispatch Box in the crossfire of arguments that he or she has clearly never addressed before. What Sir Humphrey describes as "Courageous, Minister, courageous", becomes reckless ignorance if no one said, "Wait a minute" first.
It is a compliment to the civil service that the Select Committee has done so thorough and even-tempered a job.
These are serious matters and it is right that they should be seriously addressed. As they are addressed in the Select Committee report, let me also praise civil servants for their self-restraint in not wondering aloud when Ministers would apply the same management techniques to themselves as they cheerfully endorsed for officials.
There was no question but that Lady Thatcher ran a tight ship, yet whether a guru would have recognised it as management by objectives at individual level is more doubtful. Perhaps it is the highest compliment of all that civil servants are the regulars, the custodians of the constitution, while Ministers are simply territorials who pass by with short service commissions.
Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the Government have turned down our recommendation that there should an efficiency study of Ministers?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have also crossed swords on occasions, knows that when one passes from an Administration, one acquires a certain independence of mind on these matters.
At the end of 15 years as such a territorial I was and am left with one nagging doubt. If I am right, the debate started in the last century by the Earl of Iddesleigh, as he eventually became, will carry on to the next.
When the efficiency unit was starting on its mid-1980s trawl on the future of the service, which was the harbinger of the next steps agencies, I asked the senior official who interviewed me to define the management responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary. I continued asking that question at intervals while I was a Minister. I suspect that Permanent Secretaries found the question a little naive, which reinforces my analogy of the regulars and the territorials.
Yet I went on wondering and came to a mild moment of truth in my final month as a Minister, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage when its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), asked who was responsible for what he considered the shambles of the British Library—a narrative 16 years in gestation that was conceived by a Labour Government in the 1970s.
Clearly, no one person has been continuously responsible throughout that period, though the distinguished architect has been involved throughout. It has been a chapter of long-term errors, yet to say that, whatever its underlying truth, is to imply that accountability is dead, so in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question I said, with full recognition of what I was saying, that I was responsible.

565
When it is all over, and that great library is functioning to the satisfaction and admiration of all, it may be a good case history for a PhD to determine where precisely between Ministers and officials responsibility did and does lie. That is as good a coda to this paean as I can imagine. The fact that we can discuss these issues academically, and with the public weal as our lodestar, is the best possible tribute to the quality of the civil service.
8.12 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The final theme of the right hon. Member for Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) put what he said earlier into perspective. It was wholly proper for him to pay tribute to the support given by officials in a variety of offices, but to dwell on the nonsense and disasters of the British Library was to hark back to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in a masterful speech which made the Chancellor of the Duchy sound like a used car salesman. When that expression was first used, it was more derogatory than it seems nowadays, when used car salesmen are the summit of creation.
I should declare an interest in the subject of the debate as I am parliamentary consultant to the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. Lest that should be taken as accounting for the origins of my interest in the subject, I remind the House that I chaired the Estimates Committee inquiry which recommended setting up the Fulton committee. I also chaired a Treasury and Civil Service Committee inquiry into the effectiveness and efficiency of the civil service some 10 years ago.
The Select Committee reminded us of the dominant theme of the Fulton report, which was the cult of the amateur and the uncertain role of the professional and specialist civil servant and I shall speak mainly about that.
There is a general demoralisation in the civil service today, but nowhere more so than among professional and managerial staff. It is accounted for partly by the privatisation and contracting out and the unfair terms under which they are able to bid for work, and partly by the Government's lack of understanding of the areas for which the professionals have been responsible.
One example is the Transport Research Laboratory. Not long ago an edict excluding that office from examining road pricing came directly from the Secretary of State for Transport. The Building Research Establishment has been another victim at a time when the public and the building industry need much guidance in the development and use of new materials and the effects on the comfort of people in their homes of a muddle in Government standards, in the enforcement of building regulations and the improvement of standards, particularly in the public sector.
The enormously important role of the Meteorological Office in weather forecasting and the study of climate change calls for a back-up and integration of Government scientific activities generally into the environment, which has not been forthcoming.
The lack of perception by Government of the real role of the professional civil servant is the underlying problem, rather than the management questions. We have seen it in the attrition in the numbers and roles of Government chief
566
scientists. The extreme case is the Department of Trade and Industry, where there is no longer any such creature in that sad wreck of a Department. More attention must be paid to the role of doctors, economists, statisticians and, as the right hon. Member for Westminster, South reminded us, the use of architects. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North reminded us about the role of information technology specialists. All those aspects have been severely mishandled by the Government in the past 15 years.
The Government should consider carefully the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made about the role of Electronic Data Systems. I know that the Minister had some background in this area. I hope that he will look up the employment practices and the origins of EDS in the early days and compare them with the standards that he knows from his own experience are necessary in information technology and management consulting. EDS has always grossly exceeded in its promises and failed to fulfil them in many contracts in the United States, and hugely threatens to do so in Britain. Among the parts of administrative history that will have to be written is the story behind the emerging dominance of EDS, which is a sinister development under the present Government.
The role of the professional is important not just on the domestic front, but in shaping international debate and the framing of policy. Obviously, health is a key issue. At research level it is wholly possible for Britain to exercise influence in projects such as the Human Genome Organisation. All the ethical and moral debates underlying that will help to condition international attitudes in the emerging area of public policy, which will be of great importance to the future of our race.
Another subject which is less in the future, or at any rate more in the present of current parliamentary debate, is global climate change. Debate is hotting up with the shifting of the Antarctic ice sheet. The evidence will be coming in slowly over the next 10 years. There Britain developed a key role through the contribution of one man, Sir John Houghton, the former director general of the Meteorological Office, who became chairman of the research committee of the intergovernmental panel for climate change. That continues today through the role that Professor Julian Hunt, the present chief executive, is playing in the encouragement of meteorological development in other parts of the world.
The forecasting of the path of tropical storms was a Meteorological Office development, building on the idea of a Chinese meteorologist resident in Hong Kong, For Britain to be involved in forecasting the path of tropical storms which barely touch any remains of the British empire may seem a remote and unimportant development, but underlying it is a major shift in approach to the handling not only of meteorological forecasting but of the management and the forecasting of complex systems distributed through space generally.
The sort of issues that I am talking about can be handled only by Government and at a time of public debate when there is serious, restrained and competent discussion of what are quite difficult issues, not by a Government who think that they know all the answers before they start. Nowhere has that been more disastrous than in the sphere of economic policy, where we have suffered from a succession of Chancellors—excluding the present one—who thought that they knew all the answers

567
in advance and who failed to maintain the apparatus, the thoroughness of analysis and keeping up with the state of the art in the framing of economic policy. The Government's handling of appointments in the economic service, and currently in the statistical service, shows a sad rundown in the intellectual leadership that the Government and the public sector once provided. That is important not just for Government but for the way in which these things are handled in society generally.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology was in California a fortnight ago looking at the emergence of the new high-tech biotechnology companies. One thing that is clear there is that the drive and initiative is largely due to the emergence of a new type of animal. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South reminded us that he was an MBA. I add to that the fact that that qualification was gained at Harvard. Shortly before he gained his MBA at Harvard I was at the graduate school of arts and sciences at the same university. In America today, the MBA that he was and the PhD that I was have become one person. There is the integration, the breadth of skills and competencies at a double post-graduate level, which are the necessary tools of business, administrative and public service development in the future.
Where does that have any chance of emerging in the British civil service as it is conducted today? I just do not see it. In which Department? Where would young men and women with the necessary competencies be motivated to go? An admirable scheme has been developed by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Electrical Engineers, financed by David Sainsbury or one of his trusts, for the training of chartered engineers/MBAs. There are some 60 graduates of that double discipline. Will the Minister find out how many of them are working in the public sector? I doubt whether he will find more than three or four of the 60 there. That is not good enough if we are to get the necessary width of background in the public sector.
The themes 30 years ago at the time of the Fulton report were concerned with questioning amateurism and competence and comparing that with the professionalism and specialism that was needed. Today, the questions are much more those of strategic contracting out, market testing and worries about the politicisation of the civil service. Those themes may not be so far apart. The link between them is that they both reflect not so much the problems of the civil service as the problems of Parliament and our perception of the nature of the job of Government.
If we are to achieve a sensible balance in the development of a public service which is competent, which has breadth of vision and which is practical and realistic in the handling of social and political problems, the way forward has to be set in this place. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—I look forward to hearing what he has to say in summing up his admirable report—how far the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee really taps the frontiers of economic research. Unless the House is doing that, it cannot expect Government Departments to respond.
That process will receive a further shift onwards with the new generation of Members of Parliament who will come in after the next election. I am sure that we shall see a continuation in the raising of the technical background of Members of Parliament in many walks of
568
life. I am not a pessimist in any way about current developments, but they are not always of the nature that public debate and debate in the House in particular make them out to be.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with some of those points and, perhaps most important of all, that he will deal with some of the practical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, which are of immediate public concern and also very much the concern of some of those civil servants in the union with which I am associated.
8.27 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I see that it is relatively easy to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am delighted to have done so; but it is a pity that there are so few people in the Chamber on a Thursday evening. I have counted 12 in all on both sides of the House. That is a pity, because the future of the civil service and its relationship to the House and the British constitution is an important subject. I want to say a few words about that in the time available.
Before doing so, I want to take up a point that arises from what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said. It concerns the potential for British civil servants, as perhaps some of the best in the world, to contribute to the quality of government not only in Britain but increasingly, I hope and believe, in European Union institutions, such as the European Commission.
It has always struck me that the French, from a nation that I have long admired, seem to have the ability to second and post many of their best people, albeit for short periods, from the public service to other institutions, whether public or private, where French national interests can be served at the same time as the wider interest of those particular institutions. Invariably, that means that the French have mastered the art of writing the critical first draft in many Community initiatives over the years and have hogged some of the best positions, the key positions, in European institutions.
I have long pressed Ministers—I hope that they will make a note of this point tonight—to make an even greater effort to see that some of our best, brightest and most imaginative civil servants are seconded and posted to European institutions. That can be in Britain's interest and the wider European interest. I hope that we will give that greater prominence. That thought was prompted in my mind, albeit a bit tangentially, after listening to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South.
In talking about a flexible civil service for the late 20th and early 21st century, it is every bit as important that our civil service, with all its talent and opportunities, should engage, and should be encouraged to engage, in more secondments and swaps with the private sector. I know that there is an element of that now. Perhaps when he replies, my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House the latest figures on the extent of two-way movement of civil servants, in and out of the civil service, for temporary periods, to invigorate the private sector with their perspectives from the public sector, and to do the obverse—to invigorate the public sector with very necessary perspectives of the private sector. I fear that, all too often, those who leave the civil service on short-term secondment—or what was intended to be short-term secondment—for the private sector do not return, for

569
reasons of pay, conditions, morale, and so on. If the figures show that there is a net outflow, it should be a warning sign to Ministers to do something about the problems that might lie behind it.
On the more central subject of the debate—the issues raised in the Government's latest White Paper on the civil service—and prompted by the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, I should like to say how much I have benefited, as always, from the free adult education that is available to those of us who sit on Select Committees. I have served on three Select Committees in my time: Foreign Affairs, Science and Technology, back in the bad old 1970s, and now the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I find them most interesting. Whatever impact we may or may not have on policy in those Committees—in this case, I think that we have had some impact on policy—they benefit the quality of debate and thought in Parliament by providing a free and top-class adult education for those who are lucky enough to serve on them.
I have played some part, therefore, in bringing about what we might describe as the all-party consensus which lay behind our report. I am delighted to pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend—I do describe him as such—the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), because he gave the Committee considerable wise leadership and went out of his way to build the consensus which helped to make the report that much more influential.
It is timely to pay tribute, like my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in whose constituency I live—he is keeping an eye on me—to the British civil service, not only for its qualities, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in his opening remarks, but for its ability to manage and, indeed, survive extensive change within its own sphere. That was the subject of much of our investigation in Committee. It is notable and worth setting on record that, during the Conservative party's period in office so far, the overall size of the British civil service has been projected to fall from the 755,000 which we inherited in 1979 to 477,000 at the end of the current Parliament. That is a significant reduction.
Clearly, there have been some worries in certain quarters that such a reduction—indeed, it has been described as a fragmentation—could lead to a severe loss of morale, which could be permanent rather than temporary. I was therefore relieved to see this said succinctly in paragraph 36 of the White Paper:
"The Government accepts that the process of change"—
change in the civil service—
"is unsettling; but the Civil Service, like other areas of the economy, has to adapt if the country is to improve its competitiveness."
That is a slightly bleak statement of reality, but it would be naive to suppose that our excellent civil service could have stood aside from the process of seeking greater efficiency—and, indeed, achieving it—which the private sector had to go through, very often in even more difficult conditions.
It is fair to put one's hand up on the Conservative Benches and say, "Yes, it is true that we have privatised parts of the state." We have privatised not only the state industrial sector, which used to be called the nationalised industries, but the very heartland of the state itself. That
570
was necessary and timely. It has happened in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries as well, to a greater or lesser extent. So we are not being eccentric. In my view, the state apparatus that remains—this is the important point—is more open and more efficient and is delivering public services to a higher standard than 15 or 16 years ago. I welcome that. It is one more reason to signal one's gratitude and admiration to the civil servants, at all levels—from the permanent secretaries right the way down to the humblest clerk in a social security office—who are delivering services in an exemplary way.
One important conclusion to be drawn from civil servants' achievement is that, in parallel with the dramatic reduction in the size of the civil service, indeed even in its thrust—with greater emphasis on policy advice in relatively small Departments at the centre and greater emphasis on the agency principle in terms of the delivery of public services—my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the need for fewer Departments and fewer Ministers. That is perhaps a revolutionary thought, but in the current Government there are about 90 Ministers, in round terms.
There are also all sorts of Ministers-in-waiting, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and others who sit on the Bench here. They are known as parliamentary private secretaries. Admittedly they do not take the Queen's shilling, but I suggest that the whole apparatus is becoming almost overladen, particularly when the civil service itself, the people whom Ministers are supposed to command, in military terminology, has slimmed down so admirably. My suggestion is that the great advantage of slimming down ministerial ranks might include the following points. Lines of accountability could be improved. I have been a junior Minister. I know a little bit about it. I have also been PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I have seen some of these things from the inside. There is no doubt that lines of accountability can get blurred, even in small Departments, let alone large Departments like Environment or Trade and Industry, by having a plethora of junior Ministers.
It is fair to say that, in Churchill's first post-war Government, it was standard practice to have only one junior Minister in a Department. Who is to say that the problems that Britain faced in those years were any smaller than the problems today? In many ways, they were greater, because we had our imperial responsibilities, and so on. Equally, PPSs scarcely existed. There were one or two to very senior members of the Cabinet and that was that. I know that the Government Whip is looking worried, but that heretic thought is worthy of consideration.
Mr. Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in that period of Government in the mid-1950s, it was perfectly possible that if the parliamentary secretary was not available, the PPS might be asked to take a decision himself?
Mr. Forman: That sounds admirable. I am sure that some wise decisions were taken in that way. I remember reading that in the Churchill Administration of the early 1950s, when Sir Winston was seriously ill, the government of the country was in the reliable hands of Mr. Christopher Soames.
Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of junior Ministers. I was told by no less than "Otto"

571
Clarke—the formidable Sir Richard Clarke, the inventor of the modern system of public expenditure control—that junior Ministers functioned merely as parliamentary public relations officers for their Departments, and had no managerial policy role.
Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his copious memory.
I suggested that the first advantage lay in the improvement of lines of accountability. The second is the possibility of more coherent policy making: the existence of fewer, slightly larger Departments would necessitate better co-ordination across subject areas. Thirdly and importantly, Parliament would benefit from more wise contributions such as the one that we heard tonight from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, whose speech was eloquent and even elegiac.
Let me turn to my main point. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an attempt to establish what he saw as the constitutional role of the civil service—an issue that the Select Committee considered to be central. Either I did not put my question clearly or my right hon. Friend misunderstood: he did what I rather expected him to do, and rehearsed the list of admirable qualities possessed by the British civil service.
We are all agreed on those qualities. I believe that all tonight's speeches will be found to have referred to them, in all sincerity. In a more precise context, however, the role of the civil service raises issues relating to the nature of the British constitution—to the way in which the service, which is sometimes described as an important pillar of the overall architecture, fits into that architecture and to how well entrenched it is. We need to consider whether it is on shaky foundations, and on what its position depends.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that he had an open mind on the question of a proper statute to back up the civil service code that our report proposes. I am glad about that: perhaps by the end of the debate we shall have been able to close my right hon. Friend's mind in our favour—to persuade him of the wisdom of our report. He said that one of the conditions was that the legislation should be narrowly focused. In a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold)—a copy was probably sent to all members of the Committee—my right hon. Friend specifically stated that such legislation, if it went ahead, should not include attempts to extend its scope.
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), bearing in mind his expressed wish to give a fair wind to the legislation. Perhaps he will give an assurance that he would not only give it a fair wind, but not seek to extend its scope.
Mr. McNamara: The Chancellor of the Duchy said that it would be possible at a later date to change the legislation by means of affirmative resolution in the House—by means of a statutory instrument. Given the necessary consensus, that could certainly be done. We
572
welcome the principle, but we have yet to see the precise terms of the Bill. We shall want to hold discussions with the civil service unions before reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Forman: I am delighted to hear that. I think that it constitutes some extra progress.
My right hon. Friend said that the constitutional position of the civil service should not change. In a moment, I shall ask what that really means. He also said that there should be all-party support for the change. That is clearly vital in a constitution that involves no single codified document to govern the country's affairs: we must do everything by all-party consensus, if it is to last. As I have said, I am delighted by what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said, and I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will say something similarly supportive if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
What, then, is the role and position of the civil service in the constitution? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy drew my attention, in the second chapter of his reply to me—the first was not quite so forthcoming—to the first paragraph of the proposed new civil service code. It states that the duty of the civil service is
"to assist the duly constituted Government, of whatever political complexion, in fonnulating policies of the Government, carrying out decisions of the Government and in administering public services for which the Government is responsible".
That is a fairly clear statement, but it has important implications.
The statement is, for example, very traditional. In the eyes of the current ministerial team—I do not know whether this would be true of the Opposition, if they ever returned to office—the civil service has no constitutional position independent of Ministers. That is important in the light of the debate about Clive Ponting, and numerous other events in recent years.
Mr. Radice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one change is contained in the second paragraph of the document: all those duties and responsibilities are subject to the code.
Mr. Forman: That is a potential advantage. If we examine the constitutional lineage of the proposals, we see that the code clearly suggests that civil servants are servants of Ministers in the Government of the day while Ministers, in their turn, are servants of the Crown—hence the expression "Her Majesty's Government". My interpretation is that, strictly speaking, civil servants are not seen by Sir Robin Butler and his senior colleagues to owe any duty to the state over and above their duty to Ministers. That is an important constitutional point.
Mr. McNamara: In my speech, I said that the relationship between civil servants and Parliament—particularly the House of Commons—still needed exploration, as did the question of public interest and "whistle blowers". Both issues will be discussed in Lord Justice Scott's report, which I look forward to reading. My point was that they were thorny questions, but I do not think that that would prevent the Labour party from approving the legislation that we need for the code; the other parties can speak for themselves.
Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman was right to mention Scott in this context. Scott was always hanging over the Select Committee's deliberations. We wondered

573
when he would report, and what the implications would be. Eventually we decided to press ahead, which was probably just as well: if we had waited for Scott, we might have waited for ever.
Ministers should, however, take full account of whatever Lord Justice Scott has to say, and also of what Lord Nolan says. Incidentally, I should be interested to know whether Lord Nolan has officially been invited to comment on the draft code and, if so, when his comments are expected and whether they will be published, along with others.
Because there is a chain of responsibility from civil servants to Ministers to Crown, it puts a particular responsibility on Ministers not to ask or require civil servants to do things that they properly should not do. It is all very well having a code of practice with statutory backing for civil servants—I welcome that—but we need to think carefully about something analogous to cover Ministers.
I am sorry to have to say that, but events over the past 30 to 40 years—I go back that far in my thinking—justify our considering it. It makes all the more important the idea of having a code with statutory backing. If a code is simply dependent on Ministers acting under existing powers, through an Order in Council or whatever, that would not have the same authority in these matters and would not enable arbitration to take place on the independent and authoritative basis that would apply if there were statutory backing.
In a system that does not have a codified constitution and where we are living under a regime of alleged parliamentary supremacy, it becomes all the more necessary to give a code statutory backing so that it is credible in the eyes of not only civil servants—all 477,000 of them, or whatever the figure is—but, just as important, in the eyes of the British public. There is no way at present to entrench such a code other than for Parliament, with all-party consensus, to give its support to legislation designed for that purpose.
If and when we have a more far-reaching form of constitutional change, the position might be different. In the interim, for as long as we have the status quo it is vital—and this is my main point—that there should be clear statutory backing for the code. It is the one area where there is an element of ambiguity in the Government's response to the Select Committee report. Other than that, we welcome the way in which Ministers have responded to what we said. Not only do I believe that there should be such an Act of Parliament but, as a little dicky bird tells me that there is not exactly a plethora of candidates for legislative slots in the coming Session—for various reasons which I shall not go into tonight—that strengthens the argument for an appropriate Bill finding an early and prominent place in the next Queen's Speech.
8.52 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I compliment the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. I share his dismay at finding the House so empty for a debate on an important part of the fabric of the Government and governance of this country. Indeed, I feel as though I have inadvertently wandered into a rather discreet and erudite
574
debating club, comprised solely of the members of the Select Committee. I hope that they will excuse me for gate-crashing what is almost a private affair—
Mr. Radice: Please come in.
Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman—it is one more to swell the numbers.
I offer my congratulations, which I am sure all hon. Members would wish to share, to the civil service staff for the way in which, over the past 15 years, they have stoically coped with the trauma and uncertainty of major changes in their working culture. I am sure that we all realise that that cannot have been easy and still is not easy. My party and I welcome the concept of introducing a civil service code; we should pursue the suggestion that that be backed by statutory obligations. Of course, it will depend on the detail. It is a vital part of establishing for civil service staff exactly where they stand. I take on board the point made about accountability and responsibility. I shall return to that later.
In his opening remarks, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of efficiency and cost cutting in the same breath as retaining the quality, integrity and honesty of the civil service. I shall deal with that in due course. I confess that before I was elected to Parliament I was a consulting civil engineer—so I have been on the other side of market testing, having been successful in securing work that came from that process. I worked closely with civil servants who were about to lose their functions, if not their jobs, so I knew what they were going through. Many of them were dedicated but despondent civil and public servants. Many were high-quality staff, but they had been trained and were operating in a different culture from the one in which we now try to operate our national institutions.
Privatisation can be a ruthless tool with which to gear up efficiency. The emphasis should be on the modern management techniques of establishing clear goals and objectives for staff. Staff are flexible and will change, so we should not always rely on the sledgehammer to crack the nut. There is a great danger of discarding dedicated and experienced staff when motivation is the prime ingredient that we need. I say that from my experience of being on the other side of the fence and seeing the effects that the changes had on the morale of staff. It was a great tragedy that that happened.
We have heard a great deal tonight, especially from Conservative Members, about cuts and efficiencies and how the Government's public sector policies have generated enormous savings. We need to look at that claim a little more closely. There is a feeling—indeed, there may be a case for saying—that the reality is that in some cases the Government are attempting to tackle waste where there is none. I cite as an example the staffing cuts at Customs and Excise, especially among VAT inspectors. I am sure that the House knows what good value VAT inspectors are. Each one costs about £25,000 a year in salary, pension and so on, but on average brings in about £360,000 in revenue. That is not a bad return by anyone's calculations.
The number of inspectors has been cut by about 600 when, instead, we should have targeted those resources on combating an increasing problem in our ports—the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. That is especially true in my constituency as there are several cross-channel ports

575
on the Hampshire coastline. Increasing rather than cutting the number of VAT inspectors could result in earning another £500 million a year in tax revenue.
The Government are not dealing adequately with an extraordinary amount of real waste that still riddles parts of Government bureaucracy. I want to deal with some of the key issues. I shall be as brief as possible because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I want to refer, first, to absenteeism in Government Departments and the lack of policy to deal with the problem. There seems to be an ever-increasing rise in the use of external consultants. There is almost a total lack of information on personnel matters from many Government Departments, which any efficient organisation must have. I should like to examine, and perhaps the Minister will reply to this later, some of the claims for efficiency improvement through job-shedding. The figures that I have seen seem to have gaps. I should like to test that if I can.
Another important issue is the damage to staff morale, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. When I come to my final remarks, I should like to talk about the vacuum that has been created by the Government devolving their responsibilities to agencies, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington dealt with. It is an important issue for the civil service's future.
Many hon. Members may have noticed that, in recent months, I have asked Ministers a series of questions. Some of the results that have come through are interesting. In 1993, the Occupational Health Service estimated that the direct cost of sickness absence in the civil service, taking account of salaries, pensions and national insurance contributions, was about £459 million. No one is saying that those costs can be wiped out at the stroke of a pen. Of course there will always be absenteeism: that is a factor in any organisation, business or institution. But the figures show clearly that absenteeism rates are running far higher than the average, and that, therefore, a substantial cost saving could be made.
In 1993, the National Audit Office conducted a review of sickness absences in the Inland Revenue. Its review uncovered serious shortcomings in the way in which absenteeism was dealt with. The Comptroller and Auditor General wrote to me on the matter. As a result its work in 1993 with the Inland Revenue, the National Audit Office found that it was necessary to produce guidance on best practice for other departments and agencies to incorporate. The recommendations have stood from that time. I have to ask the question: what has happened since?
Despite the guidance, in 1994, there seem to be more departments and agencies with rising rates of sickness absence than departments and agencies with falling rates. Despite guidance, absenteeism is still rising. More than 60 per cent. of the departments and agencies that I questioned had an absenteeism rate above the figure that the Industrial Society identified as the national average.
I would not wish hon. Members to think that this is a witch-hunt of civil servants who are not performing properly. I am trying to emphasise the trauma, lack of morale and despondency that generate the illnesses that create extra absenteeism, which must be dealt with in this period of change. The position is simply not good enough. The Government must recognise that there is a real waste of resources on their doorstep. They must take steps to tackle it.
576
In answer to my written questions, a number of Government Departments claim to have introduced modern management techniques, such as return-to-work interviews and better defined policies on absence and absenteeism. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has an MBA and will be familiar with those two techniques, which are important tools in management. Absenteeism is still rising and it is clearly linked to falling morale.
The Government seem to be conducting a love affair with external consultants—and not a cheap one either. They are spending more than £860 million a year on their services. But having paid the bill, all too often they seem to dump them, to use a current phrase. Time and again, they ignore the advice that external consultants provide, and, speaking as an ex-consultant, I know the frustrations that that can generate. In recent parliamentary replies, not a single Department has been able to identify any savings from expenditure on external consultants. Only two agencies managed to identify any savings at all, which totalled £382,000. That is a pathetic return on expenditure of £860 million. That has come about despite the recommendations of the Government's efficiency unit that Departments should be assessing moneys saved through consultancy work for the benefits expected, and to determine when those benefits are likely to appear. It has not happened.
The lack of information about personnel and staffing is a great cause of concern, especially in relation to absenteeism. What information is available from Government Departments? What responses have I had to questions? From the Foreign Office, I have had nothing; from the Department of Employment, nothing; from the Employment Service, nothing; from the Ministry of Defence nothing; and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, nothing. Those five bodies employ about 145,000 people—more than a quarter of all civil service employees—yet not one of them was able to produce absenteeism figures in response to my questions.
Even more surprising, none of the MOD agencies, which were set up with the aim of improving efficiency, was able to provide any information on sickness and other forms of absenteeism, which are key factors in any study of manpower efficiency. Even when agencies were able to provide me with information on sickness absenteeism and its causes, they seemed to be incapable of getting it right. It appears that different hon. Members received different answers to the same questions.
When I challenged Departments about that, the excuses that I received included the use of incorrect figures for staff in post, the omission of categories of sickness absence, and the inclusion of
"certain absences not due to sickness".
The mystery deepens.
Similar unavailability and inaccuracies extended into the external consultancies. For example, the Department of Health produced figures for spending on external consultancies that directly contradicted those given for the efficiency report, while the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment all declined to produce figures, despite the efficiency unit's recommendation that all Departments should be able to do so.
I deal now with the number of jobs that have been shed recently, especially in the past year. The Government claim to have made efficiency savings in the number of

577
civil servants employed. I believe that the figure currently cited for the number of jobs shed in the past year is about 40,000. I am sure that the Minister will confirm or correct that figure later, but I should like to know whether it includes the jobs that have been created or are being paid for through contracting out. Is 40,000 a net or gross figure? I think that we should benefit from clarification.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the developments in, the restructuring of and the changes to the culture of the civil service is staff morale. The constant and arbitrary use of the figure of 500,000 personnel as the target to which the civil service will be reduced, without it being related to specific savings or Departments, is having a devastating effect on morale. Indeed, the report recognises that morale is an important factor that will inevitably affect the quality of service. Of course, it also has a direct impact on absenteeism and the consequent lack of efficiency.
Morale has been badly damaged by the many changes that have so far occurred in the operation of the civil service and it will be damaged further by the Government's proposals for contracting out and for privatisation in the future. Of course, there is a need to increase efficiency, reduce bureaucracy and shed unnecessary jobs—we live in a changing world—but in making privatisation an inevitability the Government have created chronic job insecurity by subjecting staff to constant expenditure reviews and market testing. However, the Government still expect staff to be highly motivated and to perform to the highest standards. Frankly, that is unreasonable. In fact, there is a catastrophic decline in the morale of civil servants, which is manifesting itself in increasing absenteeism, and that must be dealt with. The increasing absenteeism rate is clearly a symptom of something more serious.
It is all very well for the Government to attempt to justify their continual cost reviews and market testing by claiming that
"the Civil Service … has to adapt if the country is to improve its competitiveness",
but, unless they deal with the trauma and despondency that they have created in the work force, their claims will continue to have a hollow ring.
I urge the Government to look again at the difficulties facing agencies in developing long-term plans and at the periodicity of the review—I know that it has been extended but has it been extended enough?—and, above all, to recognise the need to create a period of stability in the civil service. Agencies could then make proper and meaningful long-term plans and civil servants would be able to regain some sense of job security, job satisfaction, belonging and achievement. The result would be improved staff morale and real improvements in internal efficiency and service to the public.
Hon. Members have already mentioned accountability—another matter that needs clarification. The Select Committee found unconvincing the Government's attempts to draw a sharp distinction between accountability, which cannot be delegated by Ministers, and responsibility, which can. I have not found anything in the Government's response to the report or heard anything in the debate tonight that could remove that feeling of uncertainty. Indeed, I found nothing in fiascos such as the Parkhurst break-out, for which neither Derek Lewis nor the Home
578
Secretary was prepared to take responsibility, that convinced me that they would not be repeated. It is a very important issue that affects public confidence. Such examples highlight problems that will persist unless some clarification is given and acted on.
Clearly, changes are still to be made in the civil service. Improvements must be made in the efficiency of the bureaucracy. There needs to be better management practice, better long-term planning and some understanding of staff needs and motivation. The reforms need to be addressed further. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said earlier—the hon. Member for Durham, North insisted that the right hon. Gentleman expanded on the point—that it would be ironic if the Government came to regard the most successful reforms for decades in the civil service as simply a transitional phase and a staging post to privatisation.
We need, as the Committee recommended, positive assertions of the value of those agencies remaining in the civil service. Modern management techniques and the stability for which I am calling are the means to address the problems facing civil servants. Frankly, reliance on ham-fisted, dogma-driven policies is not.
9.10 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intend to make a brief speech. I join other hon. Members in expressing regret that there has not been greater attendance of this debate on an extremely important issue. After 15 years of a Conservative Government, government is still Britain's biggest business and the Government are Britain's biggest employer. It is therefore important not only to our economy but to our constitution that we get it right.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the hard work of many civil servants throughout the country in various Departments and agencies. It is a very difficult time for them, yet they work hard to serve the public and to ensure that services obtained from Government are provided in the best way that they know. It is important to pay such a tribute because civil servants have gone through a period of great change. For many of them, that change has caused much personal insecurity over their future and, often, caused alarm about the prospects for the areas in which they work. I recently spoke to people who were working in the Insolvency Service. They were desperately worried about the future, not only of the organisation for which they worked, but of the quality of the work if the Government's proposed changes were undertaken. They deserve all the tributes and all the respect that they can get from hon. Members.
I welcome most of the Government's response to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report. I was able to join that Committee towards the latter part of its preparation of that report. At times, it seemed as if the report would never end, but it did. Although it has obviously not set the House alight with enthusiasm, it was valuable and workmanlike. The great British institution of our civil service is important to the very foundation of our constitution.
I join in the praise that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), whose chairmanship of the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee during the preparation of the report was

579
an example to us all, displaying the skill needed to achieve a consensus report that all members of the Committee could support.
Today I shall talk primarily about one issue—the values of the civil service, especially impartiality. Many values are mentioned in the Select Committee's report and in the Government's response to it—such as the permanence of the civil service, its impartiality, its meritocratic nature, its honesty, accountability and integrity, its financial propriety, its commitment and its high standards. It is important that all those values be present in a civil service, and that we protect them, but the main and central concern of any Government must be to ensure that impartiality is protected.
At times during my speech I may appear to introduce a note of partisanship, but that is not my intention. If there is partisanship, it is partisanship not for party but for the constitutional role of a non-party political civil service.
There has been concern over many years—it was especially true in the 1980s and to some extent before that—about the way in which the impartiality of the senior civil service has been brought into question. The phrase "economical with the truth"—the words of a head of the home civil service, Sir Robin Butler—has gone into the dictionaries of quotations.
Mr. Radice: No, it was Sir Robert Armstrong who said that.
Mr. O'Brien: My apologies, it was Sir Robert Armstrong.
The quotation "economical with the truth" has done great damage to the reputation of the civil service, because people remember it.
There was also the television series in which Sir Humphrey Appleby was presented as the image of the civil servant. Okay, that was a joke, but at the same time it helped to give Sir Robin Butler, who took over from Sir Robert Armstrong, the responsibility of ensuring that he enhanced the public reputation of the civil service—and I am sure that that is what he set out to do.
Not only senior civil servants but the Government have the responsibility to protect that impartiality and integrity. The Government hold the integrity and impartiality of the civil service in trust for the nation, and I fear that there is concern that a Government who have been too long in office may begin to treat the senior civil service as a sort of particular party political fiefdom. That is the real danger to the impartiality of the civil service, because the civil service should not get too close to party politics. I fear that there is real concern that it may have done so in recent years.
Certain incidents immediately spring to mind. While the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was before the House last year, civil servants were asked to provide certain Government Back Benchers with amendments designed to wreck it. That Bill had wide support in this place—on both sides of the House, to some extent. Yet the Government ordered the amendments to be prepared. The civil servants cannot be blamed for preparing them; they were told to do so, and it was right for them to obey the order. No blame can attach to them.
However, I think that the Ministers who ordered the amendments to be prepared in such large numbers broke the spirit of trust in which they hold the responsibility of government. They should not put civil servants into the
580
position where they are expected to wreck a private Member's Bill of that nature, especially when it is known that the Bill has great support in the House.
Sir Robin Butler suggested to me in evidence that he knew of previous Governments who had been involved in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills for Back Benchers. That has happened for many years under different Governments. It has not been wrong when the objective has been to assist Members in genuinely putting forward amendments to improve a Bill. However, questions must be asked when civil servants are obliged to provide amendments to wreck a Bill, and particularly a private Member's Bill.
Another issue that caused great concern to members of the Select Committee when Sir Robin Butler gave evidence was two investigations undertaken by Sir Robin. Again, I speak not from a partisan point of view, as hon. Members on both sides of that Committee raised their concerns. Sir Robin Butler, as the head of the home civil service and the Cabinet Secretary, was ordered to investigate the incidents by the Prime Minister.
The first incident involved the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's visit to a Paris hotel. I do not wish to go into the details of that visit, as I am not particularly interested in the background. I am interested in what happened between Sir Robin Butler and the Prime Minister. Questions were raised about who paid the hotel bill, and the issue became a matter of intense media and political in-fighting. The Government had recently lost a number of Ministers through resignations, and did not want to lose the recently appointed Chief Secretary.
Into that political and media dogfight, the Prime Minister appears to have plunged Sir Robin Butler by asking him to undertake an investigation. Sir Robin was, at best, ill qualified to undertake any such investigation, as he did not in any previous incarnation have experience of being a policeman, a private investigator or a barrister trained in interrogation. He had none of the qualifications for playing the detective, yet it appears that he was supposed to conduct an investigation and give a report to the Prime Minister on what happened.
Sir Robin asked questions, got answers and accepted them. He did not question all the main witnesses for the prosecution; for example, it appears that he did not question Mr. Al Fayed. Sir Robin then provided the Prime Minister with a report. The importance of the report was not just that it was used to give advice to a Minister or a Prime Minister, but that a report prepared by the head of the home civil service and the Cabinet Secretary was used to limit the political damage being sustained by the Government at a particular time. The suggestion being made was that anyone challenging the conclusion of the report was questioning the integrity of the head of the home civil service.
The Prime Minister had put the Cabinet Secretary—a supposedly non-political and impartial figure—in a position where he was being used to prevent questions from being asked by Opposition Members about party political concerns that were being aired legitimately in this place and in the media. That report effectively stopped the damage that was being sustained by the Government. Yet the investigation that was carried out was not thorough, and questions remained to be asked. But how could Opposition Members ask those questions without calling into question the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary, which we had no wish to do?

581
The Prime Minister should never have allowed the Cabinet Secretary to become involved in that sort of party political row. It was a dogfight. It was a row in which the Prime Minister got the Cabinet Secretary involved, and when Sir Robin Butler was asked to undertake that investigation, he should have said, "No, Prime Minister. It would not be appropriate in these circumstances to do that." It might have been appropriate for the Whips or the chairman of the Conservative party, or someone else, to undertake that inquiry.
Similar concerns have arisen about another investigation in which Sir Robin Butler was asked to become involved, when two hon. Members were the subject of accusations about money. Again, I do not propose to go into the details of the case. The question is: should a Cabinet Secretary ever get involved in investigating the circumstances of Back-Bench Members? No Prime Minister should involve a Cabinet Secretary in such matters as it may compromise the impartiality of the civil service. It may be that it does not; Sir Robin Butler may have acted entirely properly. But the perception of many people outside this place as well as, I regret to say, many inside it, is that that investigation should not have been carried out by that individual and that impartiality might have been compromised.
The Prime Minister is in a position of trust in this matter. Perhaps unintentionally, but perhaps also with some malice aforethought, he managed to use the Cabinet Secretary to limit the party political damage that his Government were sustaining.
A further issue has arisen in the past day or so. Serious questions are being asked about civil servants' involvement in a particular Cabinet Committee. That Committee's aim appears to be to provide the Government with a way to deal with policy problems and issues that will cause them difficulties in the run-up to the next election. It is about winning the next election, and the chairman of the Conservative party is on the Committee. He is a Minister without portfolio—he has no departmental responsibility—yet civil servants are being asked to advise and assist him in performing his task of winning the next election for the Conservative party.
Other questions have been raised over a period about the payment of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's legal expenses and other matters. All those issues have caused many people to question whether there has been what has been called a
"weakening of the moral compass"
in the Government and their relationship with the civil service. Lord Callaghan has expressed concern about politicisation. That concern is, to some extent, justified by what we have seen in recent years.
Let that be a warning to the Government and the civil service that the values of the civil service must be held in trust and protected, not only by civil servants but by the Government. The Olympian Sir Robin Butler should not allow himself to be dragged into the gutter of partisan politics, nor should any civil servant. Some members of the Select Committee fear that impartiality has been undermined, and that should never happen again.
9.29 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: We have had a good and thoughtful debate, in terms of quality more than quantity. We have heard interesting speeches from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who played a prominent role in drawing up our Select Committee report, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who made some perceptive remarks and put us on our mettle in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. We shall bear his remarks in mind.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on mentioning some important matters. It would have been wrong if the debate had passed without mention of those issues, and I shall refer to them later. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his excellent speech.
Perhaps I may say a word to the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, who is to reply to the debate. His appointment drew some rude remarks from some areas of the press about rats joining sinking ships, which was unkind as I do not believe that he is a rat at all, although he has perhaps changed his mind more frequently than most. I have known him well in several guises, and when we started out as rookie Labour Members of Parliament I certainly would not have supposed that he would end up as a Conservative Minister; nevertheless, I wish him well in his new post.
The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has in some senses dominated the debate, and it is perhaps fair that it should. The background to our report was great managerial change, the next steps process—we have been told by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that that now greatly exceeds 60 per cent. and is likely to be 75 per cent. of the civil service in the future—and from 1992 onwards market testing, contracting out, privatisation, and so on. Many people have regarded those changes as increasing the danger of fragmenting the civil service. That argument was made to us by several of our witnesses, including former heads of the Civil Service.
There is no doubt that problems of morale result from all the great change that is going on. Although we were unable to carry out a survey ourselves—I shall discuss that in a moment—a number of other surveys of Government Departments have shown that there is a problem of morale in the civil service. Difficulties are also caused by bringing a great many private enterprise people into the public service. When the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, appeared before the Committee last February, he emphasised that some of the private sector managers being attracted into the public sector do not always understand that special care is needed when one is in charge of public money. That is obviously part of the background.
One political party has been in power for a long time, having been elected at four successive general elections. Although there is no evidence of general politicisation of the civil service, as Lord Callaghan told us, inevitably the younger civil servants pick up the scent, and I believe that that is true. As an Opposition Member of Parliament, I had indeed noted a difference between the attitude of the younger civil servants and that of those who have known

583
another Administration. With the possibility of a change of Administration ahead, perhaps things will improve in that respect.
The Scott inquiry has revealed a great deal about the workings of Government, hovering like an angel above our deliberations—or perhaps like a black cloud over the Government and Whitehall, but it has certainly influenced both sides.
Two things emerged strongly early on in the Committee's hearings. The first was the importance of the civil service. I believe that all who have taken part in the debate have paid tribute to the civil service as a great national asset, and our report begins by saying just that. We go on to say:
"Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors. The Civil Service's commitment to the highest standards of performance and conduct is a guarantee of constitutional and financial propriety and good government."
It is therefore very important in our constitution and in the running of our democracy.
There was general support from our witnesses for the values which underpin the civil service, including its non-partisan nature. No one argued, for example, that we should have a "spoils system". Everyone agreed that we should have an impartial civil service, with integrity, the ability to act objectively, selection for promotion on merit, and accountability. Above all, it was agreed that we should have an honest civil service. A number of our witnesses reminded us just how important it is to have an honest civil service. One only has to go to countries where civil servants are not honest to realise the economic cost of that and how it undermines the democratic process. We must therefore preserve those good qualities.
In the past, the shared values of the civil service were associated with shared ways of working, and shared systems of pay, grading and departmental organisation within the service. The intangible values to which I have been referring were linked to more tangible unifying factors. With reform and fragmentation, however, many of those tangible common elements have disappeared.
It seemed to us that in the new era of managerialism, the old methods of ensuring that the values of the civil service were maintained were no longer sufficient. That was the case for having a proper code, which has distinct advantages over the plethora of existing codes. It offers far greater clarity about civil service values, and about the duties and responsibilities of civil servants and Ministers in relation to civil servants. The code applies to all civil servants, not just to mandarins, and is both concise and comprehensive.
I stress the importance of the second paragraph of the code, which states that civil servants owe their loyalty to the Government
"subject to the provisions of this Code".
That is the first time that any external authority has been brought into the relationship between Government and civil servants. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we need to enshrine that aspect. That is the case for having statutory backing in the way that he described.
The code contains a new duty on Ministers to familiarise themselves with its content and not to ask civil servants to act in breach of it. That is important. It asks Ministers to behave with propriety. It reminds civil
584
servants of the importance of obeying the law, of dealing with the public honestly, fairly and without maladministration, and of ensuring the proper use of public money. It reminds them of their duty in relation to the separation of public and private interests and their confidentiality, and of their political impartiality. We say that it should be a condition of employment that all civil servants should read the code and conduct themselves accordingly.
We also say that if the code is to work effectively civil servants should have the assurance that if Ministers or heads of departments ask them to do things which are unconstitutional, illegal or improper, the civil servants should be able to appeal to an independent, outside body—hence the case for a civil service commission based on statute. The statute is important, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about that. A subsequent Government or Administration must not be able to remove it: it must be part of our permanent constitution.
I am delighted that the Government have broadly accepted the code. I am delighted that they have accepted that there should be an independent element in the appeal system and I am delighted that they are open minded about statutory backing. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and of the Labour party for the idea. I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal party, which is major progress.
All those factors add up to a big triumph for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Select Committees occasionally take a bit of stick—as happened for different reasons earlier this week. The study was long running. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien)—I, too, thought that we would never finish it. The inquiry was very comprehensive and I give thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the House for enabling the Committee to reach a consensus. It is interesting how the process of argument during the Committee hearings changed our minds and that of the Government. I do not pretend that the Government's change of heart was due only to the brilliance of our arguments or even to the power of Conservative Back Benchers who served on the Committee. The changing political situation—the fact that the Scott report was pending—also had an effect. The Government argued strongly against the Committee's proposals for 18 months, but then they changed their minds and I give them credit for making that excellent decision.
The time remaining is short and I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer some of the questions raised in the debate. I shall therefore not mention a number of issues to which I wanted to refer, such as the selection of top civil servants and the fact that the senior appointments committee has not been abolished as we had hoped in favour of the Civil Service Commission, although there has been some improvement.
We are sceptical about fast-streaming and I do not believe that the Government response has been adequate on that point. We proposed project teams and the idea of policy audits, but we have not had much joy in those areas either. With regard to managerial changes, we support the "next steps" process, but it should not serve as a stepping

585
stone to privatisation. Market testing and contracting out must not be used in the doctrinaire way in which the Government have used them in the past.
My position is this: efficiency changes, yes; permanent revolution, no. I do not believe that reducing civil service numbers as an end in itself—irrespective of the effect on function and morale—is a sensible way to proceed. It is a pity that the Government did not accept our request to commission a survey of civil servants and we drew our own conclusions from that refusal: the Government were clearly worried about the final results.
We have not solved the problems in the area of accountability, and we were certainly not impressed by Sir Robin Butler's distinction between accountability and responsibility. The problem with his explanation is that no one would ever be responsible for their actions. We were also not impressed by those Ministers who appeared before the Committee and said that there were occasions when Ministers could lie to the House of Commons and get away with it.
Committee members appreciated the difficulties with agencies and the way in which responsibility could fall between Ministers and agencies, with the result that no one would take the rap in the event of a disaster. Several examples of that were cited in today's debate. One proposed solution is that chief executives could be responsible to select committees for framework documents. However, I do not pretend that we have answered all the questions and I think that we should examine the subject of accountability again.
In conclusion, I endorse what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said about impartiality. We all want an impartial civil service. I warn that we must be very careful in the run-up to elections because that is when Governments are most tempted to take short cuts, and they must not do that. I have written to Sir Robin Butler about the Cabinet Committee which is serviced by civil servants. I am sure that every hon. Member would seek the reassurance that civil servants will not be used for party political purposes.
I do not believe that the civil service has been politicised, although some worrying incidents have been reported by the First Division Association. I believe that civil servants would be able to serve another Administration and I hope that they will have the opportunity to do so quite soon. The existence of a code with an independent appeals system which is backed by statute will underpin this great British institution and help to maintain the impartiality, non-partisanship, honesty and efficiency of the British civil service.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): We have had a very timely debate, because, as the House and all aficionados of the subject who are gathered here tonight know, we have had the first White Paper and the highly regarded report from the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) who, as one of my hon. Friends said, gave wise leadership to the sub-committee that prepared the report.
We have also had the Government's response in the shape of the second White Paper, which accepted the proposed code and went into discussions on the possibility
586
of legislation. We hope to settle the code after further discussion before the summer recess and have it promulgated in the second half of the year. Included in the consultations will be further discussions with the Select Committee and the Opposition spokesman, obviously taking into account all views that have been expressed during the debate.
The debate was not only timely but has been conducted mainly in a relatively bipartisan spirit, for which, in the long run, both sides of the House will be grateful. Where it was not bipartisan or where political points were made, I accept that they were serious and not irrelevant.
We are all aware of the importance of the subject. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) regretted that so few were here to discuss it, and so do I. He characterised himself as a gatecrasher to a rather small coterie who were used to discussing the matter. That is a pity, and I am glad that he was not a party pooper and is still in his place, as he said that he might have to leave the Chamber.
The seriousness of the subject was reflected in all the contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a number of points. I was disappointed by the relentlessly negative approach that he seemed to adopt, and I would contrast that markedly with the Select Committee report, which was positive about much of what the Government have done in the past 15 years. It is a pity that he did not take a more balanced view of the true picture.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien). My right hon. Friend and I are certainly concerned that there should be good morale in the civil service. Any such group of Ministers is bound to have great regard for that fact, and any thought that there might be poor morale gives us genuine concern.
Mr. McNamara: Do something about it.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have to say.
As the Select Committee said, morale is bound to suffer during periods of continuous change, but that is not a reason for not embarking on those changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, the public sector cannot be exempt from changes, nor can the private sector. We cannot ring fence the public sector and say that it must be exempt from changes that are happening elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North exaggerated the problem of morale. The Select Committee report used the expression "unease". The hon. Gentleman used very different words and mentioned a blanket of fear. Although we are concerned to maintain good morale and we were disappointed that it was bad, the hon. Gentleman has clearly exaggerated the feeling inside the civil service.
Mr. McNamara: I assure the Minister that if I felt morale in the civil service was high, I would say so and I would praise the Government of the day, but I know from my experience, and from those in the civil service whom I have met and know personally, that there is a blanket of fear, which results from their not knowing what

587
will happen to them and from the ethos of the public service that they entered being undermined by the Government.
Mr. Horam: No, I must disagree totally with the hon. Gentleman. That really is not true. I am glad to see that he is winking. I think that he is making a point about which he is not wholly serious.
Mr. McNamara: It is true.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about pay delegation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, (Mr Brooke), who has great experience in personnel management. I think that he would agree that the delegation of pay in the civil service brings closer a matching between performance and reward, which will be wholly beneficial to an efficient civil service. That is what we intend. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will find that his fears about low pay and so on are in many respects groundless. In fact, pay may be higher for many civil servants as a result of that approach.
The hon. Gentleman referred to contracts. Contracts for senior civil servants do not change the existing terms of employment and they will not expose civil servants to political or other pressures. As now, decisions on performance will be a matter for departmental management, not Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South gave a marvellous evocation of the real qualities of the civil service—"elegaic" was one word that might be used. He relished it like an old wine that he loved well over many years; that was the feeling that came across. I liked his analogy of civil servants as regulars and Ministers as territorials. I was very glad of the speech that he made.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) made some interesting and serious points about information technology, the importance of which I fully accept. As he pointed out, I too have a particular interest in that area. I understand his point about EDS, but it is not my immediate responsibility; it is the immediate responsibility of the Treasury. None the less, I have taken careful note of what he said and I shall look into the matter. In a recent report the National Audit Office pointed out that over a 10-year period EDS would save the taxpayer £225 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. I put that into the balance against the considerations that he legitimately raised.
The hon. Gentleman also made a fair point about the Sainsbury scheme. As he will know, my right hon. Friend and I are responsible not only for the public service, but for science policy, including technology and engineering. I am interested in that scheme and I shall certainly take account of what he said.
The hon. Gentleman regretted the disappearance of a serious, restrained, competent discussion—those were his words—on many issues. He cited disastrous economic policy. That was a rather unfortunate example. He may have seen the article by Wynne Godley in the Financial Times recently. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter over many years and he knows well that Wynne Godley is certainly not a Conservative supporter. He is a distinguished economist and the hon. Gentleman will be
588
satisfied of his mathematical and statistical qualities. After criticising Government economic policy since 1970, he has had to admit that during the past two years Government economic policy has been virtually perfect and that it would simply be vulgar to carry on criticising the Government. Government economic policy has been virtually perfect in the past two years. That is why now, for the first time in my life, we have an export-led economy with real prospects in the world. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. I am glad to have support from quite independent economists on that subject. There is nothing like a good economist who is running his own business; I speak from considerable experience. I am glad that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South concluded that he was not a pessimist on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about secondments and two-way movement between the civil service and the private sector. I have some figures for him. Long-term secondments have increased threefold since 1979. In 1993, there were 400 outward secondments and 200 inward long-term secondments. In 1994, just over 1,700 civil servants undertook a secondment of some kind outside the civil service, so it is going pretty well.
My hon. Friend also advocated fewer Departments and fewer Ministers. There are, of course, no fewer than 89 Ministers at the moment, although people tend to say that there are far more than there were 15 years ago. There are not, of course. There were 86 Ministers in 1979, and there are 89 now. My hon. Friend may have been thinking of the time in Disraeli's period when there were only 24 Ministers—13 in the Cabinet and 11 outside. I have to tell him that the 11 outside included a Minister for the Horse, who was the Earl of Bradford. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend really wants to go back to that particular period, but I have some sympathy with him for his general position.
Mr. David Hunt: Only for three weeks.
Mr. Horam: Indeed. A Ministry with two Ministers is infinitely more efficient and productive than a Ministry with three, four or five Ministers. [Interruption.] I do not know how many the Department of Health has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington also raised the constitutional role of the civil service. He pointed to the code and seemed to be saying that my right hon. Friend had not made a clear distinction between the various parts of the code, and was talking about the qualities of the civil service rather than the constitutional position. The fact is that the code, which is excellent, spells out the clear relationship between Ministers, the Crown and the civil service. It also says, as has been pointed out, that the civil service acts subject to the provisions of the code. That meets squarely the point that he was making.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about Lord Nolan, and I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has written to Lord Nolan, sending him a copy of the proposed code, and the Government will, of course, take account of any point that the Nolan committee may make about that.

589
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh on absenteeism. The Occupational Health Service, which is one of our agencies, is taking a look at that. There are differences between the Departments that we cannot wholly explain at the moment. None the less, the point that he made is relevant. I noted his other points, although absences are not necessarily always related to sickness.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North made a serious and good speech about the potential politicisation of the civil service. I recognise the threat that he outlined, but the Select Committee itself—the hon. Member for Durham, North reaffirmed this—did not think that the civil service had been politicised. I do not think that anyone seriously thinks that it has been, and that is precisely what the code, which now has all-party support, has been drawn up to deal with.
I thank the hon. Member for Durham, North for his kind words. Neither of us expected to find ourselves in this situation after 26 years in politics. We are where we are, however, and I pay tribute to the code that he produced. As he says, it is concise and comprehensive and applies, importantly, to all the civil service.
590
The work of the Select Committee shows the improved relationship that has occurred between Parliament and Government since Select Committees were established some 20 years ago. The iterative process that has occurred over the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report has been profoundly helpful both to Parliament and Government as a whole.
The Government's policy, as we know, is continuity in values and change in performance. We have, I think, shown that we are concerned—that the whole House is concerned—about the continuing good value of the civil service. We have, however, achieved a remarkable change in the performance of the civil service, and the public service as a whole, in the past 20 years.
I pay tribute to the civil servants who have taken part in that change, as well as the Ministers who have pushed it along. Ultimately it was the civil servants who bore the heat and the burden, and I feel that the main tribute should be paid to them for all the effort that they put into making the reforms work. I believe that we now have the best public administration in the world, and—these are not my words, but those of Simon Jenkins in The Times the other day—the most cost-effective and efficient.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Neuro-surgery Services (Thames Region)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10 pm
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Tonight's debate takes place against a background of chaos—the chaos of cuts, closures and confusion in the national health service in London and the Thames region—and in the wake of the tragic death of a patient for whom a bed could not be found in greater London.
On the radio today, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) described the consultation about cuts and closures in his area as a sham. A fortnight ago, the Minister responsible for the citizens charter—who has just left the Chamber—said he was astonished that there was nowhere in London where one of his constituents could be treated. The Secretary of State for Health, however, seems to suggest that there is no problem in London and the south-east.
Let me remind hon. Members of the tragic events that led to my request for this debate. On Monday 6 March, at about 10.55 pm, Malcolm Murray was involved in a road accident. An ambulance was called at 10.57 pm, and arrived about 10 minutes later to take the patient to Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, arriving at about midnight. While doctors, nurses and ancillary staff fought to stabilise the patient and save his life, the senior house officer—the junior doctor—spent hours on the telephone trying to find a specialist neuro-surgery bed.
The nearest neuro-surgery unit—at Brook general hospital, with which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is familiar—was closed that evening: it was not accepting referrals, because of an outbreak of gastric flu. I understand that the junior doctor contacted some nine units in the Thames region, and eventually a place was found; as we now know, the nearest that could be found was in Leeds. I am aware that an inquiry is currently taking place.
At about 5 am, an RAF Sea King helicopter travelled from Wattisham to Sidcup to airlift the patient to Leeds, where he arrived at about 8 am. He went into theatre at about 9 am, and was there for several hours. After surgery, his condition was critical and, tragically, he subsequently died.
In advance of the inquiry, I wish to pay tribute to the staff at Queen Mary's, Sidcup, who did all in their power to save the patient's life. I also pay tribute to the RAF for its rapid response, and to staff at Leeds general infirmary, who also did all in their power to save the patient.
During that week, in a damage limitation exercise, the Prime Minister said:
"Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help".—[Official Report, 9 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 454.]
Leeds infirmary is indeed a specialist unit, which had the skill and expertise to treat the patient, but that skill and expertise is not unique to Leeds; it was available in the nine or 10 specialist neuro-surgery units in Greater London and the south-east, where no bed could be found for a patient from south-east London.
592
In a letter to me, the Under-Secretary of State for Health wrote that it was often
"very difficult to strike a balance between wasteful over-provision of services and effective use of the resources available."
In a parliamentary question, I asked what was the capacity and occupancy of those units on the night concerned; that information, surely, would show whether there was wasteful over-provision and over-capacity. The Minister said:
"Information on units' capacity and occupancy rates on the night of 6 March is not available centrally."—[Official Report, 13 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 409.]
If that information is not available to the Minister, I do not see how he could make the statement that he did in his letter to me.
The Minister also suggested in his letter that one in six existing beds is inappropriately used, and therefore not always available for the life-threatening emergencies for which they were primarily intended. Is he suggesting that, perhaps, some consultant surgeons in London were refusing to take admissions, waiting for a more interesting case? Again, I should like to know the substance of what he said.
What is beyond dispute is that the south-east quadrant has been poorly served in neuro-sciences because of uncertainty about the future. For example, the Brook hospital has had great difficulty in recruiting a neuro-anaesthetist.
I accept the argument that any specialist centre needs a high volume to gain expertise, not just for the surgeons but for the whole team. One health service planner in my region has suggested that a critical mass would be a unit with five or six intensive care beds. I understand that the Maudsley has two, and the Brook three. Both size and uncertainty may have contributed to recruitment problems.
The Government's favoured option appears to be to move the Brook further into central London and so further away from south-east London and Kent, the area that it is supposed to serve. Despite the Secretary of State's recent statement to the House—in which she said:
"A generation ago, people travelled from the home counties to the London hospitals"—
now:
"Patients and GPs rightly say that they would rather have treatment close to home than travel to London.—[Official Report, 20 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 33.]
I do not dispute the need for centres of excellence, but why not one in south-east London? If the Brook is to close, why could not neurology and neuro-surgery facilities be located at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich or Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup? They are extremely convenient for the M2, the M20 and the M25. Indeed, the Queen Elizabeth has its own helipad.
In a recent debate, the Secretary of State asked how we could deal with the issue of hon. Members having great affection for their local hospitals, which cannot provide the critical mass for sub-specialties and the costly equipment needed for state-of-the-art services. In Greenwich, the Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary's could house the Brook units. North of the river, Oldchurch, with its accident and emergency and maternity and gynaecology intact, could also continue to provide neuro-surgery services. We do not need to move the units into central London to provide critical mass.

593
I have mentioned Oldchurch, which is across the river from my area. I understand that there has been consultation, but no commitment to the number of neuro beds or facilities. My information might be wrong and my fears unfounded, but I can tell the Minister that they are shared by people in that locality. Perhaps tonight he could go some way towards giving them some assurances.
My experience and that of my colleagues representing south-east London appears to be replicated by that of hon. Members representing north-east London. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has been a consistent campaigner for Oldchurch hospital. In the past, he has been supported in his campaigns by other Conservative Members, including the hon. Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). Indeed, in a debate some years ago, the hon. Member for Hornchurch, in opposing the closure of Oldchurch, called on the Secretary of State to
"desist from this unnecessary, irrelevant and expensive exercise".—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1094.]
The reorganisation plans were also vigorously opposed by my former colleagues, Jo Richardson and Bryan Gould. Recently, my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Ms Church) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have told the House of their concerns about more recent plans for the Oldchurch hospital. As the hon. Member for Romford previously told the House about closure plans:
"the community health council, the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham, trades unions, doctors, patients, other organisations and members of the public have been loud in their disapproval."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1091.]
While the proposals for total closure may have been shelved, the rundown of the hospital has continued, despite vociferous local opposition. The Government appear to have ignored the views and wishes of the community in one of the largest health districts in London by agreeing to transfer accident and emergency services miles away to Harold Wood, with an insufficient number of additional beds to satisfy the in-patient demand that will be generated.
A series of inevitable consequences has been set in train, and the consultation exercise becomes a sham. Many of the regions where accident and emergency services are threatened score high on any social deprivation index. The Black report in 1980 showed conclusively that accidents are class-related and that,
"when people work in hazardous conditions, or children in unsafe housing experience higher accident rates, it is the speed and the quality of response of the health service that can make all the difference to whether injury is fatal, or whether it results in permanent or temporary disability."
Early response was crucial in the situation at Orpington hospital and at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup.
Oldchurch hospital has a high neuro-surgical case load compared with other units in the Thames region. It could be expanded on site. The beds currently closed could be reopened with increased contract income. In those circumstances, the move of the unit either to Royal London hospital or Harold Wood hospital makes no sense, but that is the likely outcome.
Neuro-surgery services serving east London, north and south of the Thames, could end up moving further into central London. In the south-west of London, what is the
594
future for the world-renowned centre of excellence at Atkinson Morley hospital, over which a threat has been hanging for many years?
Over a long period, together with Greenwich council and the community health council, I have expressed the view that the regional cardio-thoracic and neuro-science departments should continue to be located at Brook hospital. When it was clear that the Ministry of Defence intended to vacate the more modern facilities at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, local Members of Parliament of both parties supported a planned transfer of services from the Brook to Queen Elizabeth hospital.
The regional speciality services based at the Brook have established an enviable reputation, pioneered much innovative work, and been responsible for many medical advances. That has been achieved despite the fact that staff have been working in a less than adequate physical environment, in a hospital that has had the threat of closure hanging over it for some 15 to 20 years, and where staff have been demoralised by the progressive rundown of their departments. But as the community health council has said in its response to the consultation document:
"The letters we receive from neuro and cardiac patients from a wide area and the enthusiastic fund-raising and support work carried out locally both testify to the excellent service carried out by these departments".
I share the community health council's concern that the option of moving the regional specialties to the Queen Elizabeth was not even considered in the post-Tomlinson speciality review. The reason given was that the Queen Elizabeth was not a national health service hospital. It was not at the time, but discussions were well under way between the Department of Health and the MOD, and between the MOD and the local health authority. It will be an NHS hospital in the near future. That proposal should be considered seriously now.
The most recent consultation document says that other health authorities are already planning to send patients to the proposed central London centres, but, as the Queen Elizabeth option was not included as a possibility, other commissioners have not been in a position to consider all the options.
The Minister must be aware of the growing fears and concerns, and of the dissatisfaction expressed by consultants about the plans for the Maudsley-King's unit, both in the transitional period and in the long term. Services from the Brook will be shoehorned into King's, which is already unable to cope with demand, as evidenced by the deferral of the proposed closure of Dulwich hospital. Services are to be shoehorned into that unit, together with 44 Maudsley neurology beds, without easy access to medicine, surgery or intensive care. Doubts still remain about the ability to provide the capital investment needed for a long-term solution.
In response to the consultation document, the community health council states:
"In addition, it is claimed in justification for the proposed move of Neurosciences to Kings, that proximity to the psychiatric services at the Maudsley will be advantageous. The CHC has not heard any arguments supporting this theory. While cross referrals may take place, they are unlikely to be greater between Neurosciences and Psychiatry than between many other speciality areas.
It is also difficult to understand why the Tomlinson and post-Tomlinson reviews concluded by recommending that specialist services be moved into London (though the reviews differed in the

595
preferred destination) when these recommendations go against the two main aims of the exercise: to move services out of London and to ensure that services followed patients.
Greenwich residents have a higher level of cardiac problems than most of their neighbours and accidents necessitating neuro-surgery occur more in this area near to major road systems. The proposal however is to move services into London and away from patients."
There appears to be complete confusion and little agreement about future plans. Why are some cardiac beds to be transferred to Guy's/St. Thomas' and some to King's? The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham consultation document shed no light on this. Neurosciences will be split, as the King's development will not be ready to receive them for at least two years after the Brook closes. Patients will need to go to the Maudsley for neurology and to King's for surgery. I wonder whether that will that count as two patient episodes. In any event, it is neither cost-effective nor in the interests of patients or staff.
There are already problems for my constituents, with paediatric neurology services being split between Guy's/St. Thomas' and King's—so much so that paediatric consultants in Greenwich are recommending that future contracts for acute neurology and neurosurgery be placed at Great Ormond Street, where services can be provided under one roof.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to recalculate the cost of the proposed move of the regional specialty services and contrast it with the cost of transferring those services from the Brook to the new Queen Elizabeth NHS hospital. While doing so, will he perhaps tell us why, in the transfer, it is proposed that 10 beds will disappear?
10.15 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for the opportunity to inform the House about the important matter that he has chosen for this Adjournment debate. I begin by offering the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray my sincere condolences following his recent tragic death.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in his place. Indeed, he ministered to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who, although he did not refer to the need for ear, nose and throat facilities in his constituency, seemed to require them this evening. I congratulate him on getting through his speech despite his evident difficulties.
I deal first with the Murray case. It leads to a number of concerns, and I should like to take this opportunity to deal with them. The transfer of Mr. Murray from Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup to Leeds during his NHS treatment for serious head injuries on 7 March has rightly led not only—partially—to this Adjournment debate but to other expressions of serious concern about the availability of appropriate facilities for his treatment and care.
The House will by now be well aware that, on 8 March, South Thames regional health authority initiated an investigation into the case and the key issues arising from it. South Thames RHA has already given a commitment to publish its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health as quickly as possible. I understand that the report will not be long delayed.
596
I am sure that the House and the hon. Member for Woolwich will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the findings of the panel that has been appointed to report, but I should like to take this opportunity to make three points about the case and the circumstances that pertained on the night of 6/7 March.
The patient, Mr. Murray, required neurosurgery and intensive facilities. The intensive care facilities at or adjacent to the 10 hospitals in the Thames regions with neurosurgery facilities were certainly all very busy on the night in question. That does not, however, rule out the possibility that, with better bed management, a neurosurgical bed with intensive care support might have been made available.
On the general question of overall provision of neurosurgery facilities, which is of course important and sets the context of the debate, a review of regional records shows that, in 1994, all South Thames residents requiring neurosurgery were treated in hospitals in the Thames regions or in Southampton, which is more convenient for some residents in the south-west part of the South Thames region. More specifically, I understand that the consultant who received Mr. Murray in Leeds praised the way in which he had been treated before and during his journey. It is important to set that matter on the record.
As I have said, however, more detailed public consideration of this case will have to await the publication of the panel's report, but Ministers are being kept abreast of the key findings and issues raised, which will inform other decisions meanwhile. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, on that particular matter, I am not in a position to go further this evening.
I turn now to the broader question raised by the hon. Gentleman about reviews of neuroscience. The House will be aware of the independent review of neuroscience in London, which was published in June 1993, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The work of that review group has been carried forward in South Thames since October 1994 by another neuroscience review group, with the full involvement of clinicians. The analysis undertaken by that review group was reported to chief executives of health authorities in South Thames on Wednesday 22 March.
That analysis is, of course, connected with the proposals for the future of acute services in north and south-east London, which are now with Ministers for a decision. I am confident that our forthcoming decision on acute services in north and south-east London will provide the context for the rapid resolution of the issue of how best to provide the balance of tertiary neuroscience services required in the Thames regions.
I take this opportunity totally to refute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that consultation is a sham. It is far from that. It is a proper consultation process in the fullest sense. The findings of the consultation process will be seriously regarded by Ministers, and properly considered, and decisions will be brought forward in due course in a proper way.
I am, of course, very much aware of the specific concerns about the robustness of neuro-anaesthetic cover at the Brook hospital, pending the taking of those decisions. Indeed, not too long ago, I had the benefit of a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham in my office to discuss this very matter, and I listened to the points that they made

597
extremely carefully. I made further inquiries, and I am pleased to be able to say to both of them tonight that those inquiries proved fruitful.
As the result of all that, steps have now been taken to strengthen cover, with two appropriately trained senior registrars who are now available for the Brook. That means that the Brook neuro-surgery unit will be able to remain operational until new, improved facilities in the long-term are available elsewhere.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my colleagues and I listened to the important points that he made. I hope that he will welcome my response as suitable, and that it allays a number of his concerns.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say how much agreement there is on this side of the House with what the hon. Member for Woolwich said about the Brook, and how great a welcome there will be in and around the Brook for the announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister has made. The work load carried by the consultant anaesthetist has been extremely heavy, and everyone owes her a debt of gratitude for what she has managed to achieve.
Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich for allowing that intervention—
Mr. Austin-Walker rose—
Mr. Malone:—and of course I shall be delighted to allow him a similar intervention.
Mr. Austin-Walker: I simply want to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, and to express my gratitude for the response.
Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; the matter was indeed important. I must tell him that there are occasions on which Ministers are actually keen to reach the right conclusion, and I hope that this has been one of them.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that Mr. Murray required intensive care in addition to neuro-surgical services. The availability of intensive care unit services was just as much an issue in that case was the availability of neuro-surgery beds.
In 1992, the Department commissioned a report from Professor Klim MacPherson of the health promotion sciences unit at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine on the provision of intensive care services in England. That was published on 7 February.
On 21 March, the Secretary of State met the presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing, as well as representatives of the Intensive Care Society and the British Association of Critical Care Nurses to discuss the findings of Professor
598
MacPherson's report and the way forward. My right hon. Friend brought that meeting forward, because she too was concerned about the implications of the events that had unfolded.
As a result, it has been decided to establish a professional working group to seek professional consensus on the criteria for admission to and discharge from intensive care. In addition, the Department is funding the intensive care national audit and research centre, to set up an audit facility and to maintain a United Kingdom database of patients in intensive care. The outcome of all that work will provide better information about the way in which intensive care units should be used to help inform practice in that important area.
The hon. Member for Woolwich asked what had been discovered about the occupancy of intensive care beds, especially those connected with neuro-surgery units, on the night in question. He will understand that I cannot answer that question specifically tonight, but I can assure him that such matters will be part of the subject of the review that is under way. When the report is published, in what I hope will be a short time, the matter will be dealt with, and the hon. Gentleman will have the answer that he seeks.
The tragic events of 6 and 7 March serve to underline the urgency and importance of the work already in hand to define and facilitate the best future pattern of neuro-science and intensive care facilities in the Thames regions. I believe that everybody acknowledges that, although people may have their individual views about how that destination should eventually be reached. It is true that existing patterns of services have served the community well, but both disciplines are at a watershed in their development.
In the context of what I have said this evening, I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich will concede that the professional views widely expressed across London agree that a reconfiguration of specialties is extremely important if the excellence of medical care that London deserves, which should be the norm in this city, is to be preserved.
That aim was what informed the debate that resulted in the Tomlinson report and the inquiry undertaken by the specialty neuro-surgical review in 1993. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the importance of taking those matters forward, and the fact that the consultation process that is under way, which I shall consider soon, is an important step in the process.
I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in the round, we are looking at such matters in the most serious way. As for the particular points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham raised, of course we consider the specifics when they are raised before us. I hope that he thinks that my response this evening has been constructive.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TREASURY

  Pool Betting Duty
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he expects to receive from the pool betting duty in(a) the current year and (b) next year. [15399]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The amount of pool betting duty receipts is expected to be about £340 million in 1994–95. No separate forecasts are made for pool betting duty for future years.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was received from the pool betting duty in December, January and February 1993–94 and December, January and February 1994–95. [15398]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The amount of pool betting receipts for December, January and February 1993–94 was £88.2 million and for December, January and February 1994–95 was £81.6 million.

  Spread Betting
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the likely effects of deregulating sports spread betting; [14795]

  (2) what consultations he has had concerning the deregulation of sports spread betting; [14793]

  (3) what alternative forms of regulations he has considered for the control of sports spread betting; [14796]

  (4) what regulations exist to protect participants in spread betting and to ensure they are fully informed of the risks. [14794]

  Mr. Nelson
  Spread bets are currently regulated as investments under the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986. Companies offering spread betting services are required to become authorised by joining one of the self-regulating organisations recognised under that Act. In doing so, they are subject to detailed conduct of business rules.

  Spread betting based on matters such as the performance of financial indices will continue to be

  Debt written off prior to privatisation

  Year

  Privatisation

  Amount £

  Type of Debt

  1980–81

  British Steel

  509,308,359

  National loans fund

  1980–81

  British Aerospace

  60,000,000

  Public dividend capital

  1980–81

  National Freight Corporation1

  100,000,000

  National loans fund

  1980–81

  British Airways

  160,000,000

  Public dividend capital

  1982–83

  British Transport Docks Board2

  81,293,616

  National loans fund

  1984–85

  British Telecommunications

  2,789,865,772

  National loans fund

  284
  regulated in this way. But we intend that spread betting on matters such as sporting events and the weather should be excluded from the scope of the Act.

  The financial services deregulation task force identified non-financial spread betting as an area for deregulation. My officials have consulted industry representatives, as well as the Securities and Investments Board and the Home Office. A draft amendment to exclude certain non-financial spread betting from the Financial Services Act is under preparation, and the Treasury will shortly be consulting with all interested parties on its terms.

  Barings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government and Bank of England officials will co-operate fully with all requests for information

  made by judicial managers, representatives of SIMEX and other authorised persons in Singapore charged to carry out inquiries into activities at Barings.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: If any such requests are received by the Treasury, officials will co-operate fully to the extent allowed by the applicable statutory framework and the need to avoid confusion or unnecessary duplication between inquiries. I understand that the Bank of England takes the same view.

  Privatised Companies
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total tax receipts for the last financial year from industries that have been denationalised since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: Corporation tax receipts in 1994–95 from privatised companies are likely to be £2.5 billion.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Banks) of 17 November 1986,Official Report, column 82, as to the number of individual shareholders retaining shares in each of the concerns privatised since 1979. [15401]

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally, but the number of shareholders may be found in individual companies' annual reports.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the exchequer what was the total amount of debt written off in each of the privatisations and sale of Government assets since 1979, for each company privatised. [15358]

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the debt written off, and the type of debt concerned, for each company privatised where this occurred. This includes all debt written off since 1979 in companies subsequently privatised. The liability to pay interest on debt remains up to the date of repayment or write-off.
  285

  Debt written off prior to privatisation

  Year

  Privatisation

  Amount £

  Type of Debt

  1986–87

  BAA

  43,503,340

  National loans fund

  1988–89

  British Steel

  500,000,000

  Public dividend capital

  1988–89

  British Steel

  3,480,000,000

  Borrowing under Iron and Steel Act 1982

  1989–90

  Water companies

  4,973,332,672

  National loans fund

  1989–90

  Water companies

  55,013,916

  Public Works Loan Board

  1991–92

  Scottish electricity companies3

  1,043,573,600

  National loans fund

  1994–95

  British Coal

  1,633,400,000

  Voted loans

  Notes:

  1privatised as National Freight Consortium-now NFC.

  2 privatised as Association British Ports Holdings.

  3 prior to privatisation, national loans fund debt due to the South of Scotland electricity board nuclear programme of £1,368,390,398 was transferred to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and subsequently written off.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the administrative costs for the share offers relating to(a) British Gas, (b) the electricity generating companies, (c) the electricity distribution companies, (d) the two Scottish electricity companies and (e) the water companies in the same

  Adiministrative costs1 of privatisation

  Year

  Selling and other commissions

  Marketing2

  Recovering bank costs

  UK advisers fees

  UK underwriting

  Other costs3

  Total

  British Gas

  1986

  8

  36

  40

  4

  53

  22

  163

  Water companies

  1989

  6.7

  36.3

  26.1

  25.8

  33.2

  15.4

  143.5

  Regional electricity companies4

  1990

  10.5

  15.2

  92.3

  28.8

  36.6

  18.5

  201.9

  Generating companies4

  1991

  3.3

  6.9

  34.1

  17.2

  14.9

  8.2

  84.6

  Scottish electricity companies4

  1991

  4.1

  5.9

  29.4

  19.6

  21.5

  9.1

  89.6

  1 Only costs borne by the Exchequer are shown. Costs shown exclude VAT and, where known, stamp duty, the cost of incentives and interest earned on application monies.

  2 Including the operation of the share information office.

  3 Including overseas expenses.

  4 Costs to 31 December 1991.

  5 Costs to 31 March 1992.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the number of those who will pay income tax in 1995–96; and how many people paid income tax in each year from 1978–79 to 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Provisional estimates for 1993–94 and onwards are given in the table. Figures for earlier years are available in table 2.1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994", a copy of which is in the Library. The increase in taxpayer numbers is largely due to economic growth. In addition, the number of people in work is increasing—UK work force in employment up 174,000 between December 1993 and December 1994.

  Year

  estimated numbers of individuals paying tax (millions)

  1993–94

  25.5

  1994–95

  25.7

  1995–96

  26.2

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the numbers of
  286
  manner as he did in his answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of 5 March 1992, Official Report, column 240. in respect of British Telecom. [15400]

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the administrative costs for the sales requested.

  poor people who would be assisted by the zero rating of standing charges in regard to VAT on fuel. [14980]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Zero rating of standing charges would not necessarily help the very poor who frequently are on a prepayment meter tariff which is for a single supply and does not identify a standing charge. The Government have put in place a substantial package of help for those least able to meet the increase in their fuel bills. In addition, the Government have increased funding of the home energy efficiency scheme to £100 million a year from April. The burden of VAT on fuel will bear fully only on people of working age not receiving means-tested benefits.

  Vocational Courses
  Ms Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief on training costs is given to people who enrol in and pay fees on national vocational qualification and other vocational courses; and if he will make a statement. [15161]

  Sir George Young
  Since 6 April 1992, tax relief has been available to individuals for the payments they make for training capable of counting towards national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications, subject to certain conditions. Relief at the basic rate of tax is given by deduction at source from the fees by the trainee, so both taxpayers and non-taxpayers can benefit.
  287
  Employees may also be able to claim tax relief for certain job-related training expenses under an Inland Revenue extra-statutory concession—ESC A64—if the requirements of the concession are met.

  The self-employed can also get tax relief for business expenditure on training which is revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of their trade or profession.

  Retail Prices Index
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 275, on consumer expenditure patterns, if he will ask the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee to consider how the retail prices index might be modified to take better account of the spending patterns of consumers varying in response to sales and special offers. [15387]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to do so. The Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee has recommended repeatedly that the quantities and qualities of the contents of the RPI basket should be held constant during the year. The weights given to different items and types of shop are, therefore, reviewed annually. This reflects changes in consumers' shopping patterns more closely than in most other countries, which only re-weight their indices at intervals of about five years.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on his Budget proposal to extend personal equity plans to corporate bonds, preference shares and convertibles. [16474]

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget proposal to admit corporate bonds, preference shares and convertibles to PEPs has been widely welcomed. The Inland Revenue will be issuing draft regulations, for consultation, on 31 March. Comments will be invited as soon as possible, but, in any event, by no later than 12 May. In the light of the consultation, the regulations will be finalised by the end of May, laid before the House in June and, subject to the negative resolution procedure, will come into force three weeks later.

EMPLOYMENT

  Cumbria Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Cumbria TEC is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [16586]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Cumbria training and enterprise council has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three-year licences. Its licence will be effective from April 1995.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of full-time employees 288
  on adult rates in (a) Greater Manchester, (b) Merseyside, (c) Cheshire, (d) Lancashire and (e) the north-west region whose weekly earnings excluding overtime were (i) less than £220 and (ii) less than £200 broken down by the categories (1) manual males, (2) non-manual males, (3) all full-time males, (4) manual females, (5) non-manual females and (6) full-time females giving total numbers of employees in the sample in each case; and what is the number of part-time employees on adult rates in (a) to (e) whose hourly earnings excluding overtime, were (iii) less than £6 and (iv) less than £5.50, broken down by the categories, (7) manual females, (8) non-manual females, (9) all part-time females, (10) manual males, (11) non-manual males and (12) all part-time males, giving total number of employees in the sample in each case.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information from the 1994 new earnings survey is provided in the following tables:

  Full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period Number in sample with gross weekly earnings, excluding overtime, below the following amounts: April 1994

  Number and percentage of full-time employees with gross weekly earnings less than:

  £220

  £200

  Manual men

  Greater Manchester

  766

  51.4

  552

  37.1

  Merseyside

  267

  40.0

  193

  28.9

  Cheshire

  268

  40.4

  207

  31.2

  Lancashire

  396

  49.0

  296

  36.6

  North West Region

  1,697

  46.8

  1,248

  34.4

  Non-manual men

  Greater Manchester

  330

  19.0

  260

  15.0

  Merseyside

  154

  20.5

  117

  15.6

  Cheshire

  83

  11.9

  63

  9.0

  Lancashire

  173

  20.9

  137

  16.5

  North West Region

  740

  18.4

  577

  14.4

  All men

  Greater Manchester

  1,096

  34.0

  812

  25.2

  Merseyside

  421

  29.6

  310

  21.8

  Cheshire

  351

  25.8

  270

  19.8

  Lancashire

  569

  34.8

  433

  26.5

  North West Region

  2,437

  31.9

  1,825

  23.9

  Manual women

  Greater Manchester

  291

  86.6

  265

  78.9

  Merseyside

  106

  88.3

  97

  80.8

  Cheshire

  103

  75.7

  88

  64.7

  Lancashire

  162

  88.5

  154

  84.2

  North West Region

  662

  85.4

  604

  77.9

  Non-manual women

  Greater Manchester

  734

  48.3

  573

  37.7

  Merseyside

  387

  49.8

  296

  38.1

  Cheshire

  274

  49.2

  211

  37.9

  Lancashire

  393

  54.2

  316

  43.6

  North West Region

  1,788

  49.9

  1,396

  39.0

  289

  Full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period Number in sample with gross weekly earnings, excluding overtime, below the following amounts: April 1994

  Number and percentage of full-time employees with gross weekly earnings less than:

  £220

  £200

  All women

  Greater Manchester

  1,025

  55.2

  838

  45.1

  Merseyside

  493

  55.0

  393

  43.8

  Cheshire

  377

  54.4

  299

  43.1

  Lancashire

  555

  61.1

  470

  51.8

  North West Region

  2,450

  56.3

  2,000

  45.9

  Part-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period Number in sample with gross hourly earnings, excluding overtime, below the following amounts: April 1994

  Number and percentage of part-time employees with gross hourly earnings less than:

  £6.00

  £5.50

  Manual men

  Greater Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cheshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North West Region

  109

  83.8

  104

  80.0

  Non-manual men

  Greater Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cheshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North West Region

  78

  57.4

  76

  55.9

  All men

  Greater Manchester

  76

  69.1

  75

  68.2

  Merseyside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cheshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North West Region

  187

  70.3

  180

  67.7

  Manual women

  Greater Manchester

  314

  94.9

  306

  92.4

  Merseyside

  246

  96.5

  239

  93.7

  Cheshire

  113

  89.0

  110

  86.6

  Lancashire

  149

  95.5

  143

  91.7

  North West Region

  822

  94.6

  798

  91.8

  Non-manual women

  Greater Manchester

  438

  73.7

  410

  69.0

  Merseyside

  245

  71.4

  223

  65.0

  Cheshire

  197

  75.8

  182

  70.0

  Lancashire

  228

  70.6

  204

  63.2

  North West Region

  1,108

  72.9

  1,019

  67.0

  290

  Part-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period Number in sample with gross hourly earnings, excluding overtime, below the following amounts: April 1994

  Number and percentage of part-time employees with gross hourly earnings less than:

  £6.00

  £5.50

  All women

  Greater Manchester

  752

  81.3

  716

  77.4

  Merseyside

  491

  82.1

  462

  77.3

  Cheshire

  310

  80.1

  292

  75.5

  Lancashire

  377

  78.7

  347

  72.4

  North West Region

  1,930

  80.8

  1,817

  76.1

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the value of the enterprise allowance at current values if the annual rate of inflation had been applied since the scheme's inception. [15063]

  Mr. Paice
  It is estimated that the value of the £40 weekly enterprise allowance, introduced nationally in 1983, would be £69 at current values if the annual rate of inflation had been applied throughout.

  The standard rate of £40 ceased to apply in 1991 when the programme was renamed the business start-up scheme. Training and enterprise councils, which deliver the scheme, could then pay between £20 and £90 per week.

  BSUS resources are now part of the single regeneration budget. This will fund locally initiated economic regeneration projects, including start-up activity, where they are proposed and approved.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of health dangers to workers associated with asbestos; if he will provide details of enforcement of existing controls; what new steps his Department proposes to take; and if he will make a statement. [15317]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The most recent formal assessment of the effects on health of exposure to asbestos was conducted by Sir Richard Doll and Professor Julian Peto on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission. The results were published in 1985. Recent research by Professor Peto and the Health and Safety Executive, published in The Lancet on 4 March 1995, has shown that although the assessment is still valid, the extent of occupational exposure to asbestos dust was more widespread than previously thought. That research indicates that those employed in the building maintenance industry such as plumbers and electricians may be at risk from occasional exposure to asbestos installed in existing buildings. HSE is currently mounting a campaign to raise awareness of the risks from asbestos in these occupational groups.

  All work with asbestos is governed by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, as amended in January 1993. In addition, the most dangerous—that with asbestos insulation and coating—is covered by the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations (ALR) 1983. The provisional enforcement figures for 1993–94 are set out in the following table:
  291

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  Average fine per conviction (£)

  CAWR

  31

  20

  1,395

  ALR

  6

  6

  1,117

  HSE is satisfied that current legislation and guidance provide an adequate framework for preventing and controlling the risks posed by exposure to asbestos dust.

  Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether unemployed people who have once been required to attend either(a) a restart course, or (b) a workwise—worklink in Scotland—course, or (c) a job-plan workshop, and who have fully complied with that requirement, will be free from any subsequent requirements to attend such a workshop or course in a particular spell of unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [15151]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about attendance on Jobplan, Workwise (Worklink in Scotland) and Restart Courses.
  It may help if I explain that since December 1990 there has been a requirement for people to attend a Restart Course after two years unemployment if they fail to take up an offer of a place on an Employment Department (ED) programme at their Restart interview. This requirement is covered in the Income Support (General) 1990 Regulation 21A. This regulation was amended in March 1993 to cover people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more and they are now required to attend a Jobplan Workshop if they refuse an offer of a place on an ED programme.
  In April a new package of help for 18–24 year olds called Workwise and 1–2–1 will replace Jobplan for people in this age group who have reached 12 months of unemployment.
  It is not out intention that people should be required to attend more than one Jobplan Workshop or equivalent for 18–24 year olds or more than one Restart Course within a spell of unemployment if they have already been required to attend and have completed the full programme. I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions apply when a person has to leave training for work or community action because of(a) operational difficulties encountered by their provider, including the unavailability of a suitable work placement, or (b) illness or accident, so as to allow the person to qualify for entry to another training for work or community action place; and if he will make a statement. [15183]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils will be required to provide alternative training where a provider is no longer in a position to provide training for work as agreed in the person's individual training plan, so that the individual does not have leave the programme. Where trainees experience an extended period of sickness, they will be able to re-enter the programme without having to requalify.

  If people have to leave community action due to operational difficulties encountered by the provider or through illness or accident, they are able to rejoin the
  292
  programme, if they wish to do so, without having to requalify.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if unemployed claimants are offered a place in(a) training for work or (b) community action, or (c) job clubs or (d) the job interview guarantee at a restart or other counselling interview would they lose benefit if they fail to participate; if they take up a place on any of these programmes, if they can leave at any time without incurring a benefit penalty; and if he will make a statement. [15152]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Participation in employment and training programmes is generally voluntary and failure to participate does not carry a benefit sanction. The only exception to this is at the 12 and 24-month stage of unemployment where clients are asked to attend a job plan workshop and restart course respectively unless they take up a place on another Employment Department programme.

  Consequently, people who agree to participate in one of the programmes listed by the hon. Member but who fail to start, or who leave prematurely, are not usually subject to benefit sanctions. They are, however, interviewed to see if there is a problem, to make sure the course of action previously agreed is still appropriate and to see what other help may be needed.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many doctors were working within the employment medical advisory service for each year since 1979, broken down by region; what studies are currently in progress on the work of EMAS doctors; what are the estimated number of EMAS doctors for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [15136]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following tables show the numbers of doctors working by region in the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service on 1 April for each year since 1979.

  In 1979 EMAS was organised in the following regions:

  Number

  Eastern and Midlands

  7.0

  London and South East

  13.5

  Northern

  5.5

  North East

  8.5

  North West

  13.0

  Scotland

  9.0

  South West

  6.5

  Wales

  3.5

  West Midlands

  9.5

  293

  From 1980 to 1984 EMAS was organised as follows:

  Year

  Eastern and SE Midlands

  London South and SE

  London North

  Northern

  North East

  North West

  Scotland

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  1980

  6

  7

  5

  6

  6.5

  13

  8

  6

  4.5

  9.5

  1981

  6

  6.5

  5

  6

  7.5

  13

  8.5

  8.5

  5.5

  8.5

  1982

  6

  6.5

  4

  5

  6.5

  10

  8

  6

  4.5

  7.5

  1983

  6

  5

  4.5

  4.5

  6.5

  10

  7.5

  6

  5.5

  8.5

  1984

  5

  6

  4.5

  5.5

  5

  10

  7.5

  6

  4.5

  8.5

  From 1985 to date EMAS has been organised in areas which make up the following regions:

  Year

  Home Countries

  London and South East

  Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales and South West

  Yorkshire and North East

  1985

  5

  10

  12

  10

  7.5

  8.5

  9

  1986

  4.5

  10

  10.5

  8

  7.5

  10

  9.5

  1987

  5.5

  6.5

  10.5

  9

  7.5

  9.5

  7

  1988

  5

  4.5

  10

  7

  5.5

  8.5

  6

  1989

  6

  4.5

  8

  7

  6

  7

  6.5

  1990

  6.5

  4

  9

  5

  6

  7

  8.5

  1991

  7.5

  4.5

  9.5

  6

  6

  6

  7.5

  1992

  7

  7.5

  10

  7.5

  6.5

  5

  8.5

  1993

  7.5

  6.5

  9.5

  7.5

  6.5

  7

  8.5

  1994

  6.5

  5

  6.5

  8

  5.5

  5

  8.5

  Note:

  From 1993 the figures do not include the director or deputy director of medical services who were based in headquarters.

  A prior options study of EMAS activities to consider whether they could be undertaken by alternative means is currently in progress.

  Year

  Home Countries

  London and South East

  Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales and South West

  Yorkshire and North East

  1995

  6.5

  4

  4

  5

  3.5

  3

  6

  1996

  6.5

  4

  4

  5

  3.5

  2

  6

  Jobseekers' Records
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what records of active job seeking he expects to be kept by claimants who have problems with reading and writing, or whose first language is not English; and if he will made a statement. [15174]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Clients who have problems with reading and writing, or whose first language is not English, are not expected to keep written records. They are asked to provide a verbal account of the steps they have taken to seek work. If they have particular difficulties, I would expect the Employment Service to offer them appropriate advice and assistance.

  Jobcentres
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in respect of the advertising in jobcentres of full-time jobs at(a) £40 and (b) £45 a week; and if he will make a statement. [15788]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Rates of pay for particular jobs are matters for agreement between employers and workers. Jobcentres advise employers who offer vacancies with low pay about the local prevailing rates of pay for the job and their likely prospects of filling the vacancy.
  294
  The following table shows the anticipated numbers of EMAS doctors by region for 1 April 1995 and 1 April 1996.

  Lifeguards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a standard training qualification to be required of all coastal lifeguards. [14784]

  Mr. Paice
  I am replying as Minister responsible for training and vocational qualifications. The Government have no plans to introduce a new qualification to be required of all coastal lifeguards. The Royal Life Saving Society (UK) awards the national beach lifeguarding qualification.

  Repetitive Strain Injuries
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to amending the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 to require cases of repetitive strain injuries to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement. [15213]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Commission is currently considering the responses to its public consultation document on proposals for change to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. The proposals include adding to the regulations' list of reportable diseases
  295
  certain categories of upper limb disorder, so-called repetitive strain injuries.

  A copy of the commission's consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what steps his Department is taking to(a) monitor the number of men and women dying from mesothelioma, (b) monitor the age of the men and women dying from mesothelioma and (c) estimate the specific years that the victims of mesothelioma faced exposure to asbestos; [15214]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to monitor the occupational backgrounds of the victims of mesothelioma. [15216]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive receives copies from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office (Scotland) of all death certificates mentioning mesothelioma. The age, sex, latest full-time occupation, and other details on the death certificate are recorded on a database. Tabulations of mesothelioma deaths by age and sex are published in "Health and Safety Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  An analysis of the occupational breakdown of mesothelioma deaths will be published in the "Occupational Health Decennial Supplement", a joint publication by OPCS and HSE, on Thursday 30 March 1995. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  The timing of mesothelioma victims' asbestos exposure cannot be determined from routine sources. This issue is to be addressed in a planned case control study of mesothelioma cases.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by region the annual cost of advertising job vacancies in the press and on radio in Scotland. [15597]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the annual cost of advertising job vacancies in the Press and on the Radio in Scotland, listed by region.
  Unfortunately this information is not recorded centrally, as it is the responsibility of the local Business Manager and is therefore managed at a local level.
  The Employment Service uses 12 Radio stations spread over Scotland and over 100 different Newspapers. This makes the cost of collecting this information prohibitive.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Outreach Projects
  Malcolm Bruce
  ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by region the number of outreach projects providing access to vacancy and advisory services operating in Scotland. [15599]
  296
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Outreach projects providing access to vacancy and advisory services operating in Scotland. We have interpreted Outreach projects to mean those where information outside and complementary to Employment Service (ES) programmes and services is provided by advisors in locations other than ES offices.
  The ES has supported, either in full or as part of a joint funded initiative, nine Outreach type projects throughout Scotland in 1995–95. These are based in the following locations;

  Strathclyde Region:-
  Castlemilk Economic Development Agency Office, Castlemilk, Glasgow;
  Ferguslie Park partnership premises, Ferguslie Park, Paisley;
  The Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre in Glasgow, covering projects in Shawlands, Govan and Maryhill areas;
  Drumchapel, Glasgow;
  The Ashgill, Netherburn and Stonehouse areas of Lanarkshire.

  Lothian Region:-
  The Pilton Partnership premises in Edinburgh.

  Grampian Region:-
  The Forres Area Action Project premises in Forres, Morayshire.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Freephones
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the Employment Service freephone services in Scotland. [15598]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what plans the Employment Service (ES) has to extend freephone services in Scotland.
  While we are continuously reviewing the services we provide to clients in rural areas, there are no plans at present to extend the freephone facility.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reserves were held by each TEC at the end of the financial year 1992–93 and 1993–94. [15833]

  Mr. Paice
  A list of English training and enterprise councils and their accumulated reserves, as shown in their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial year 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the following tables:
  297

  TECs by region

  Accumulated reserves

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  North east

  County Durham

  6,582

  7,845

  Northumberland

  3,696

  5,150

  Teesside

  9,186

  10,738

  Tyneside

  4,486

  3,497

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  2,514

  2,885

  26,465

  30,115

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  2,579

  2,167

  Merseyside

  4,210

  4,638

  QUALITEC

  1,055

  1,257

  7,844

  8,062

  North west

  Bolton/Bury

  2,861

  4,633

  Manchester

  3,377

  4,810

  METRO

  519

  378

  Oldham

  1,456

  1,196

  Rochdale

  1,087

  1,665

  South and East Cheshire

  2,419

  2,222

  Stockport and High Peak

  2,782

  2,827

  Cumbria

  2,999

  2,800

  ELTEC

  3,364

  3,602

  LAWTEC

  2,917

  4,098

  NORMID

  1,093

  1,870

  24,874

  30,101

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  3,993

  3,172

  Bradford

  3,432

  3,135

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  828

  1,662

  Humberside

  5,193

  5,049

  Leeds

  5,724

  5,837

  North Yorkshire

  4,353

  5,270

  Rotherham

  2,865

  3,467

  Sheffield

  4,157

  5,301

  Wakefield

  3,110

  3,856

  33,655

  36,749

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,556

  1,099

  CAMBS

  622

  964

  Essex

  5,037

  4,243

  Greater Peterborough

  1,532

  1,462

  Hertfordshire

  2,641

  2,398

  Norfolk and Waverney

  2,161

  2,951

  Suffolk

  2,984

  1,529

  16,533

  14,646

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  944

  1,258

  Leicester

  4,597

  5,492

  Lincolnshire

  2,553

  3,779

  Northamptonshire

  1,977

  1,355

  North Derbyshire

  749

  1,008

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,289

  2,129

  South Derbyshire

  4,106

  3,675

  16,215

  18,696

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,212

  931

  Central England

  1,340

  1,259

  Coventry/Warwick

  2,203

  1,739

  Dudley

  1,214

  1,279

  HAWTEC

  1,679

  1,025

  Sandwell

  1,706

  1,639

  Shropshire

  1,304

  1,625

  298

  TECs by region

  Accumulated reserves

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  Staffordshire

  5,789

  7,086

  Walsall

  2,340

  1,303

  Wolverhampton

  1,411

  899

  20,198

  18,785

  South west

  Avon

  3,071

  4,374

  Devon/Cornwall

  7,407

  5,451

  Dorset

  2,848

  2,572

  Gloucester

  1,575

  1,870

  Somerset

  1,746

  2,193

  Wiltshire

  1,110

  2,155

  17,757

  18,615

  London

  AZTEC

  1,932

  2,765

  CENTEC

  906

  2,437

  CILNTEC

  2,161

  2,388

  LETEC

  655

  3,260

  North London

  3,005

  2,745

  North West London

  864

  1,412

  SOLOTEC

  3,439

  5,070

  South Thames

  3,611

  2,319

  West London

  1,163

  1,511

  17,736

  23,907

  South east

  Hampshire

  4,679

  4,493

  Isle of Wight

  879

  1,014

  Kent

  5,774

  4,938

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  677

  896

  Heart of England

  2,424

  2,496

  Surrey

  1,663

  2,828

  Sussex

  5,230

  5,244

  Thames Valley Ent.

  3,970

  5,145

  25,296

  27,054

  Grand total

  206,572

  226,730

PRIME MINISTER

  Administration and Policy Formulation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the amount of money spent on administration and policy formulation by the Prime Minister's office in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14648]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 March 1995 to the hon. Member for Meirionnyd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Official Functions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the amount of money spent on functions hosted by him in his official capacity as Prime Minister in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14783]
  299
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: Expenditure from my office's budget on functions hosted by me in my official capacity as Prime Minister in 1993–94 was £33,000; information for projected expenditure is not available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Service Agency
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the logo for the Court Service Agency, (b) the winning design, produced by Jeanette Paris, of last year's departmental staff logo competition and (c) such of the Epps Partnership drawings working up the design as are in existence. [15780]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for the designs to be placed in the Library.

  George Long
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the case of George Long was referred to the Court of Appeal; whether a date has yet been fixed for the appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Home Secretary referred the case of George Long to the Court of Appeal on 16 March 1994. The hearing of the appeal was due to take place on 4 April 1995, but was taken out of the list on 20 March 1995 at the request of the parties' solicitors.

  Magistrates, West Yorkshire
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the political balance of magistrates within West Yorkshire.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political balance of magistrates within West Yorkshire on the latest information available is as follows:

  Conservative 566

  Labour 401

  Liberal/Democratic 245

  Independent/Not known 160

  Structured Settlements
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "Structured settlements and interim and provisional damages". [16476]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government welcome the report and will introduce legislation implementing all the recommendations made in it, both on the rationalisation of the structured settlements system and on other aspects of the law of damages, when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Trusts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "The Law of Trusts—Delegation by Individual Trustees", Law Com. No. 220. [16477]
  300
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have decided to accept the Law Commission's recommendations subject to one amendment, agreed with the commission, which will ensure that there will be no need to renew an enduring power of attorney if the donor of the power has a beneficial as well as a fiduciary interest in the relevant property. The Government will introduce legislation to implement these proposals when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was paid by regional electricity companies to Electricité de France for supplies via the cross-channel interconnector in each of the last five years; and what proportion in cash and percentage terms was accounted for by it being electricity sourced from nuclear power stations. [15839]

  Mr. Eggar
  The amounts paid for electricity supplies across the interconnector are a commercial matter for the contracting parties. I understand that those RECs with output contracts with EDF have been able to satisfy the Director General of Electricity Supply that the electricity they import from France is supplied from designated nuclear stations.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the electricity supplied by Electricitié de France through the cross-channel interconnector in each of the last five years. [15840]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the parties to the relevant contracts.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much electricity was imported from France through the cross-channel interconnector in each of the last five years; and how much was produced by nuclear power. [15842]

  Mr. Eggar
  Electricity imports from France have been as follows:

  Electricity imports from France, GWh

  Year

  1990: 11,749

  1991: 16,466

  1992: 16,786

  1993: 16,763

  1994: 16,942

  Source: National Grid Company plc

  I understand that those regional electricity companies with output contracts with Electricitié de France have been able to satisfy the Director General of Electricity Supply that the electricity they import from France is supplied from designated nuclear stations.

  Television Decoders
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether it will be possible to oblige manufacturers of decoding systems for television transmission to fit, in addition to the proprietary
  301
  conditional access system, a connector to the decoder box for a common interface; and if the Government support the concept of a common interface throughout Europe.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government have looked closely at this issue. The development of a common interface for conditional access equipment is an option provided for in the draft EC directive on standards for television broadcasting. A common position on this directive was adopted by the Council on 13 November 1994. The directive is now being considered by the European Parliament. The European Digital Video Broadcasting Group—an industry body with a standard-making role—has developed an agreed technical specification for such an interface. If the directive is adopted in the terms of the common position, the common interface will be an option, but not a requirement, for manufacturers of set-top boxes. However, manufacturers will be obliged to incorporate in equipment the capacity to descramble signals according to a common European algorithm.

  The Government have supported these developments. The Government consider that it is important that the option of a common interface should be open to manufacturers and to those establishing conditional access systems for digital television. But the Government are also firmly of the view that a common interface should not be mandatory for conditional access systems: such systems involve a considerable investment, and face a real risk of piracy. Not all operators will want manufacturers to install a common interface; they should not be obliged to do so.

  DTI surveys commissioned from polling or public survey companies 1993–94

  Survey

  Objective

  Contractor

  Enterprise Initiative Tracking Study

  Track awareness and perceptions of the Enterprise Initiative programme among businesses

  MORI

  Evaluation of the LINK programme: Nanotechnology

  Evaluate this aspect of the LINK programme

  PA Consulting

  Survey on small firms publication research

  Establish awareness of and attitudes towards Small Firms' division's publications

  BLM Research and Marketing

  Radiocommunications Agency Customer Survey

  Citizens' Charter customer feedback

  MORI

  Firework Safety Study

  Gauge public awareness of/reaction to firework safety publicity to assess 1995 advertising strategy

  RSGB

  TEC Evaluation

  Evaluate TECs' performance

  PA Consulting

  Renewable Energy Awareness—industrial and commercial sectors

  Assess extent of awareness of renewable energy at senior management level

  BMRB

  Renewable Energy Awareness—general public

  Assess extent of public awareness of renewable energy

  RSGB

  DTI Surveys commissioned from polling or public survey companies 1994–95

  Survey

  Objective

  Contractor

  Metrication Survey

  Assess public attitudes before implementation of EC Directive on metric food pricing

  RSGB

  Survey on the United Kingdom Aerospace sector

  Assess needs of aerospace sector for DTI services

  PA Consulting

  Wider Effects of Inward Investment

  Assess what are the wider effects of inward investment

  PA Consulting

  United Kingdom Measurement Foresight programme

  Assess long-term metrology requirements of industry from DTI laboratories

  PA Consulting

  Radiocommunications Agency—Quality of service improvements for Private Mobile Radio (PMR) users

  Obtain customer feedback in order to improve service to PMR users

  EDS

  Radiocommunications Agency Customer Survey

  Citizens charter

  MORI

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when and in what form he expects to announce the results of the nuclear review. [15447]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 19 October 1994,Official Report, column 239.

  Surveys
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14501]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The tables list only those surveys commissioned by my Department from polling or public survey organisations in 1993–94 and 1994–95. Information on the individual fees paid cannot be disclosed due to commercial confidentiality considerations, but the total value of those listed was £270,000 in 1993–94 and £329,000 in 1994–95. Most surveys commissioned by my Department are of businesses and are conducted by business consultants or by the Department itself. Polling organisations compete for these contracts in accordance with competitive tendering rules, and sometimes gain contracts for other than polling work.
  303

  DTI Surveys commissioned from polling or public survey companies 1994–95

  Survey

  Objective

  Contractor

  Business Links Baseline Tracking Study

  Tracking research for the Business Link initiative

  MORI

  Firework Safety Study

  Guage public awareness of/reaction to firework safety publicity to assess 1995 advertising strategy

  RSGB

  TEC Evaluation

  Evaluate TECs' performance

  PA Consulting

  British Coal Allotments
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with regard to allotment holders on British Coal property. [13902]

  Mr. Page
  We are actively pursuing with British Coal options for the future of allotments. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Executive Pay Review
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Greenbury committee on executive pay to report. [15434]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The CBI announced on 16 January that Sir Richard Greenbury would chair a group to review the structure within which executive remuneration was determined and disclosed. The announcement indicated that the group would aim to report within six months.

  Investing Companies
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what grants, aid or relief are available to companies investing in the United Kingdom from(a) Government, (b) the European Union and (c) local authorities and how much money was granted in each year since 1990 under each source. [15341]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not collated. Schemes run by my Department are published annually in "The Government's Expenditure Plans, Trade and Industry", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Legg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) non-EU and (b) EU foreign companies have invested in the United Kingdom since 1990. [15323]

  Mr. Eggar
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, for the financial years 1990 to 1994, from a total of 1,478 inward investment projects in the UK, 983 were from non-EU countries and the remaining 495 from EU countries. These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Legg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of assets repatriated from the United Kingdom by overseas companies since 1990. [15320]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Competing for Quality"
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide a breakdown of the results of the "Competing for Quality" programme, on a Department-by-Department basis, for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 giving the proportion of work awarded for each Department which was abolished, privatised, contracted out, awarded to the in-house team or led to internal restructuring and the level of savings achieved by each Department.

  Mr. Horam
  The results of the "Competing for Quality" programme, covering the period from April 1992 to September 1994, have been broken down as requested. Copies have been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consulates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of maintaining United Kingdom consulates in 1993–94; what are the projections for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [14268]

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

  Year

  Cost £ million

  1993–94:

  50.1

  1994–95:

  51.6

  1995–96:

  53.4

  The figures include the costs of consulates-general and one vice-consulate. Further information can be found in the FCO's 1995 departmental report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Palestine
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitment he has made to send United Kingdom observers to supervise the Palestinian legislative elections; and if this has been accepted by President Arafat. [15534]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During his visit to Gaza on 14 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the EU's willingness to consider co-ordinating international observation of the Palestinian elections. Chairman Arafat warmly welcomed this. The nature of the UK's participation will be considered once the agreement has been reached between the Israelis and the
  305
  Palestinians on the arrangements for the elections and their observation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made in implementing the second chapter of the declaration of principles at 9 March meeting between Shimon Peres and Yaser Arafat. [15532]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Peres and Mr. Arafat agreed to aim to complete negotiations on elections and redeployment on the west bank by 1 July, and on various confidence-building measures—including the opening of safe passage routes between Gaza and Jericho, the reactivation of the ministerial committee reviewing procedures for the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the expedition of passage through checkpoints. They agreed to increase the number of permits for Palestinian workers in Israel to 21,000. Two new joint committees on security and civilian issues have been formed. It was also agreed to transfer additional economic powers to the Palestinians in the west bank.

  Foreign Ministers Meeting
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Carcassonne. [15673]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  No. of casuals

  81

  80

  83

  99

  106

  115

  Percentage of total work force

  0.83

  0.81

  1.01

  1.24

  1.38

  1.53

  1 Projected figures for 1995–96.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) expenditure for the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland for 1994–95 and (b) projected expenditure for the same body for 1996–97. [15411]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Forecast expenditure by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland for the 1994–95 financial year is £781,000. At this stage, projected expenditure by the commission for the 1996–97 financial year is estimated at £823,000.

  School Transfer Tests
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the details of the marking formulae for the school transfer test. [14895]

  Mr. Ancram
  The compilers of the tests prepare a marking key for each of the tests. The key indicates the correct answer, or the range of acceptable answers, to each question and, if appropriate, the basis on which the available marks should be awarded. The marking keys are adjusted to take account of unforeseen acceptable answers
  306
  the informal EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Carcassonne on 18 and 19 March. Discussion covered a wide range of topical issues. The EU's relations with Russia and the situation in the former Yugoslavia were the main focus. On Russia, EU Foreign Ministers agreed a broad strategy covering the EU's political, economic and security relationship, taking into account the economic reform process in Russia, the situation in Chechnya and questions of European security architexture.

  Discussion on the former Yugoslavia concentrated on the need to ensure the extension of the cessation of hostilities in Bosnia; the continuation of the presence of UN forces in Croatia; and the importance of carrying forward proposals for a durable and peaceful settlement of the conflict.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks' duration for the current year and each of the past five years, in each case specifying what percentage of the respective total work force these employees constituted.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: The number of employees on temporary contracts of less than 51 weeks' duration are as follows:

  which emerge during marking, upon which all candidates' papers are remarked accordingly.

  Copies of the marking keys are made available to the principals of primary and preparatory schools when marking is complete.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make available the individual child's marks to parents of children who undertake the school transfer test; [14896]

  (2) what marks were awarded in the school transfer results for examinee number 21949/8. [14898]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not the Department's policy to issue transfer test marks for individual candidates.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what adjustments are made in the marking results of the school transfer test to take account of the individual child's age. [14897]

  Mr. Ancram
  The marks obtained by the children in each section—English, mathematics and science—of each test are adjusted for age, using a statistical analysis of the scores to calculate an amount to be added to the scores of the younger children; the younger the child, the larger the allowance will be. The allowance for each child is calculated in accordance with the day of his or her birth.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide details of the launch of the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland as a next steps executive agency. [16202]

  Mr. Moss
  The Public Record Office of Northern Ireland will be formally established as an executive agency on 1 April 1995.

  The key performance targets set for the agency for 1995–96 are:

  1. to (a) process 1,100 linear feet of privately deposited records and ensure that 100 per cent. of all new such "open" material is processed within one year of receipt; and (b) reappraise approximately 10,000 linear feet of records with a view to eliminating low-grade material;

  2. to reduce the unit cost of £16.62 per reader visit by 6 per cent. to £15.79 without diminishing the quality of service;

  3. to process written enquiries from customers within 10 working days of receipt in 70 per cent. of cases and within 14 working days in 95 per cent. of cases; and

  4. to manage the agency's work load—including an anticipated 3 per cent. increase in readers and the introduction of extended opening hours—while ensuring that expenditure is within financial limits approved by the Department.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Detective Agencies
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the schemes, activities and projects on which Brays Detective Agency has been retained by the Treasury Solicitor, in each case giving the Government Department sponsoring the scheme, activity or project; what is the purpose of the contract with Brays; and what is the total expenditure to date. [15119]

  The Attorney-General
  Brays Detective Agency is used by the Treasury Solicitor on a case-by-case basis rather than under any standing contract. The principal Government Departments for which work is undertaken by the agency are:

  Department

  Activity

  1 Amount £

  Department of Transport

  Property-related work, mainly in relation to road schemes, actions for possession and actions against trespassers

  310,930

  Ministry of Defence

  Work in relation to possession, debt and personal injury actions

  8,400

  1 Amounts paid to the agency to date in the financial year 1994–95.

SCOTLAND

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of cases of ectoparasitic infestation in sheep for(a) the two years before compulsory dipping was abolished and (b) the two years since compulsory dipping has been abolished.
  308
  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 31 January 1995,Official Report, column 652, for the number of cases of sheep scab during the period in question.

  Other ectoparasitic infections of sheep have never been notifiable in Scotland and consequently information on the number of cases of these diseases is not available.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the national nature reserves. [15125]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The national nature reserves are listed in the annual reports of Scottish Natural Heritage. Copies of the reports for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are in the Library.

  Scottish Sleeper Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in favour of the withdrawal of the Fort William and Carlisle to London sleeper services and of the withdrawal of Scotland to London Motorail services. [15143]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rape Convictions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the median age of men convicted of rape for the first time; and if he will make a statement. [14260]

  Mr. Maclean
  The convictions of two samples of men born in 1953 and 1958 have been traced up to the ages of 39 and 33 respectively. The samples included 75 men convicted of rape for the first time. The median age for this group was 22 years old.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of convicted rapists imprisoned in English and Welsh prisons in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [14261]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the number of convicted rapists imprisoned in English and Welsh prisons in 1994 and if he will make a statement.
  Provisional information for 1994 shows that 446 persons were received into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales under sentence for rape.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convicted prisoners were admitted to a prison hospital or a general hospital in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; what these figures are as percentages of the general hospital population; and if he will make a statement; [14262]

  (2) how many convicted rapists were admitted to a prison hospital or a general hospital in (a) 1993 and
  309
  (b) 1994; what these figures are as percentages of the total number of convicted rapists in prison; and if he will make a statement. [14263]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about admissions of convicted prisoners to prison or general hospitals.
  I regret that information on admissions for in-patient care is not collected by remand and convicted prisoner categories, or by type of offence.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average sentence given to men convicted of rape in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1994: and if he will make a statement; [14266]

  (2) what was the average sentence given to men convicted of rape in 1980; what was the average duration of the sentence served by these men; and if he will make a statement. [14267]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information on the average sentence length given for adult males convicted of rape for the years 1980, 1990, 1992 and 1993 is given in the table. 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Precise information on the average duration of the sentence served by men convicted of rape in 1980 is not available, but those given determinate sentences would have served up to two thirds of their sentence depending on whether and at what stage they were granted parole.

  Average sentence length imposed at the Crown Court on adult males—aged 21 and over—for rape offences, 1980, 1990, 1992 and 1993

  England and Wales

  Offence

  Year

  Average sentence length1 (months)

  Substantive rape

  1980

  50.9

  1990

  75.9

  1992

  78.9

  1993

  77.9

  Attempted rape

  1980

  41.2

  1990

  58.7

  1992

  60.4

  1993

  53.0

  Other rape2

  1980

  12.0

  1990

  15.0

  1992

  10.0

  1993

  15.0

  Total rape

  1980

  48.7

  1990

  73.3

  1992

  76.6

  1993

  74.2

  1 Excludes life sentences. The proportion sentenced to Life of those given an immediate custodial sentence for total rape in 1993 was 3.4 per cent.

  2 Includes offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sec. 7, Mental Health Act 1959, Secs. 127, 128(1)(a) and 128(10) (b).

  Lifeguards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make compulsory the provision of lifeguards in coastal areas frequented by holiday-makers; [14785]

  (2) if he will make the provision of coastal lifeguards and beach safety procedures a statutory duty of local authorities; [14786]

  (3) if he will establish a central body to control and standardise the provision of coastal lifeguards and coastal safety procedures. [14788]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government acknowledge the considerable efforts of voluntary bodies, such as the Royal Life Saving Society and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which encourage the provision of coastal lifeguards and coastal safety procedures; and the efforts of beach operators, including local authorities in coastal areas, to improve beach safety. We particularly welcome the provision of appropriately trained lifeguards and the introduction of beach safety procedures. However, we are not presently persuaded that it is necessary for these matters to be regulated by statute or by a Government-appointed central body.

  Water Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with the National Water Safety Committee towards guidelines for local authorities on coastal safety. [14787]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The National Water Safety Committee was consulted in the course of the preparation of the joint publication by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Royal Life Saving Society UK of the report entitled "Safety on British Beaches—Operational Guidelines". The Government welcomed that publication, which was circulated free of charge to each local coastal authority, and commend it to all those responsible for the safety of visitors to the British coast.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reduce the number of drownings on Britain's coastal resorts; and if he will make a statement; [14815]

  (2) what resources are made available to local authorities in order to provide coastal safety guidance and procedures towards the cost of coastal lifeguard provision; [14817]

  (3) if he will introduce a national standardised flag system to enable bathers in coastal areas to gauge tidal and other water hazards; [14814]

  (4) what encouragement and guidance he issues to local authorities in coastal areas on the issue of coastal safety and lifeguard provisions. [14818]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answers 20 March 1995]: The Government support the water safety efforts of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents with a grant. We hope that the campaign which ROSPA proposes to launch at the beginning of the summer covering general water safety will help to reduce the number of drownings on Britain's coastal resorts.

  The publication "Safety on British Beaches—Operational Guidelines" published in 1993 jointly by ROSPA and the Royal Life Saving Society offers guidance and advice to local authorities and other beach

  311
  operators on coastal safety and lifeguard provisions. That publication also includes details of the two interacting flag systems which have been adopted in many countries worldwide to warn bathers about sea conditions and designating specific activity areas within a supervised system. Central Government do not make any resources available to local authorities in coastal areas specifically to assist them with their work in connection with coastal safety.

  Transport Accidents (Legal Process)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 796, on reforms into the legal process of inquiry, what conclusions the inter departmental group of officials reached; when the group next expects to make further recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [15835]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The interdepartmental group identified a number of options. These will be contained in a consultation paper, which should be published shortly.

  Torture
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government submitted to the United Nations their latest periodic report under the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [16478]

  Mr. Howard
  The United Kingdom's second report under the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was today submitted to the United Nations. Copies of the report have also been placed in the Library.

  Live Animal Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries he has made as to the likely policing costs for 1995–96 of proposals to tranship live animals and veal calves from the port of Folkestone; and if he will make a statement. [15253]

  Mr. Maclean
  These are budgetary matters, which are the responsibility of the police authority. I understand that no estimate of the likely cost for 1995–96 has been made.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers on active duty in the Metropolitan police area(a) at the present time and (b) in 1979. [15266]

  Mr. Maclean
  In December 1993—the latest period for which figures are available—operational police strength in the Metropolitan police area was 19,932 and support strength 7.211. Comparable figures are not available for 1979 as data were not collated in this format. The total police strength of the force is now nearly 25 per cent. greater than in 1979.

  Criminal Justice Legislation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons recent criminal justice legislation has not removed or amended the assumption that a person aged from 10 to 14 years cannot be convicted of a crime without proof that he or she knew 312
  what they were doing was wrong; and if he will make a statement on the Law Lords' ruling of 16 March. [15388]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government took the view in 1990—in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", Cm 965, paragraph 8.4—that the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax made"proper allowance for the fact that children's understanding, knowledge and ability to reason are still developing"

  between the ages of 10 and 13.

  Following the judgment of the House of Lords given on 16 March, the Government are now giving careful consideration to that judgment.

  Intercepted Communications
  Mr Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds mail sent by members of the group known as inner sanctum to the Bank of England is being intercepted; and if he will make a statement. [15134]

  Mr. Howard
  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to confirm or deny whether interception of communications has been authorised in any particular case. Persons who believe that their communications have been intercepted may apply to the tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 for an investigation.

  Research (Prisoners)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, columns 547–48, if he will now place in the Library a copy of the research into public attitudes towards the Prison Service carried out by MORI. [14843]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Further to my reply of 28 February, the research into public attitudes toward the Prison Service carried out by MORI was undertaken to guide the work of the service. There are, therefore, no plans to publish it or to place a copy in the Library.

  Custodial Sentences (Women)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women served custodial sentences in each year since 1989, broken down by type of offence committed. [14865]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms. Janet Anderson, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many women served custodial sentences in each year since 1989, broken down by type of offence committed.
  Information for the years 1982 to 1992 is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (Tables 3.10 (young offenders) and 5.9 (adults) of the 1992 edition, Cm 2581), a copy of which is in the library of the House of Commons.
  Information for 1993 and 1994 is given in the attached table, a copy of which will be placed in the House of Commons library.
  313

  Females received under immediate custodial sentence into Prison Service establishments: by type of offence for England and Wales 1993–94

  Type of Offence

  1993

  1994

  All offences

  2,379

  2,952

  Violence against the person

  326

  392

  Sexual offences

  14

  7

  Burglary

  106

  125

  Robbery

  98

  112

  Theft and handling

  785

  1,059

  Frauds and forgery

  215

  223

  Drug offences

  295

  283

  Other offences

  350

  461

  Offences not recorded

  190

  290

  Note:

  Excludes any prisoners held solely in police cells.

  Excludes fine defaulters.

  Spread Betting
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department intends to monitor the effects of deregulating sports spread betting. [14792]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the Treasury will shortly be consulting on the terms of a draft amendment to exclude certain non-financial spread betting from the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986. Decisions on the form of any future monitoring will be taken in the light of that consultation.

  Staff-prisoners Ratio
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the staff to prisoner ratio for each prison in England and Wales(a) at the latest date available and (b) for each of the last 20 years.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the staff:inmate ration for prisons in England and Wales.
  The attached tables provide a breakdown of the staff:inmate ratio for each prison in England and Wales by category. Copies of these tables have been placed in the Library. Sub totals, and the staff:inmate ratio are provided for each category of prison. The inmate figures exclude those in police cells. Both the inmate figures and the staff figures are for 31 January 1995. The staff figures include all prison officers, senior officers and principal officers and, in the case of private sector prisons, all prisoner custody officers.
  The information required to provide a similar breakdown for each of the last 20 years is either not available, or not readilny available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but a second
  314
  table is attached which supplies the available total staff:inmate ratio since 1975.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what conclusions he has reached following consultation on the Government's proposals for reform of the Sports Council. [16377]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The creation of separate United Kingdom and England Sports Councils was warmly welcomed by those who responded to the Government's proposals, and I can confirm that, subject to the grant of royal charters, we intend to proceed to set up both councils from 1 January 1996. As previously announced, Mr. Rodney Walker, the current chairman of the Sports Council, will in due course become the chairman of the English Sports Council. I am pleased to be able to announce today that Sir Ian MacLaurin has agreed to join the Sports Council and to serve in due course as chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council. I am also pleased to be able to announce the other members-designate of the United Kingdom Sports Council:

  UK Sports Council

  Mr. Rodney Walker, Chairman-designate of the English Sports Council

  Mr. Graeme Simmers, Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council

  Mr. Ossie Wheatley, Chairman of the Welsh Sports Council

  Mr. Don Allen, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Sports Council

  Mr. Gary Lineker

  Mr. Rob Andrew

  Mr. Clive Lloyd

  Dr. Sarah Springman

  Mr. Craig Reedie

  I would expect the UK Sports Council to work closely with all the appropriate bodies of British sport throughout the UK and in particular with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Scottish and Welsh Sports Associations and the Northern Ireland Council of Physical Recreation.

  I can also announce today the Government's intention to produce in early summer a White Paper setting out the broader strategic framework for Government policy on sport. It will focus on the development of sporting opportunity for young people, within and outside formal education, and on creating pathways through every stage of sporting activity, including the elite level. This will allow talent to achieve its fullest expression. I have asked the chairmen-designate of the English and UK councils to prepare and submit to me precise definitions of the functions of their respective bodies, taking account of White Paper policies.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the criteria for assessing the competitive bids for the channel tunnel rail link and the Euro passenger services which will ensure that(a) the successful bidder is demonstrably competent to run as well as build the railway and (b) safety and security against terrorist and other dangers. [15348]

  Mr. Watts
  The bidders for CTRL and EPS demonstrated these competences at the pre-qualification stage. The successful promoter will be obliged to comply fully with the requirements of existing legislation on railway security and safety, and the requirements of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and my Department's transport security directorate.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be issuing his revised guidelines for operating section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1992 before the Select Committee examining the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill finishes taking evidence. [15748]

  Mr. Watts
  I hope to do so.

  Lorry Checks
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many intermodal lorries were checked, and if the accuracy of their consignment notes were considered at the intermodal truck depots in each of the last three years; and how many of these inspections were carried out at the nearest depot to the points of the lorries' departure. [15740]

  Mr. Norris
  The regulations in question were intended to encourage combined road/rail freight through the channel tunnel. The delayed start of full freight operations through the tunnel meant that, in the half year to 30 September 1994, no vehicles were found to be operating at the higher weight limit. The vehicle inspectorate will shortly be compiling figures for checks carried out up to 31 March this year and I will forward them to the hon. Member as soon as they are available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will now reconsider the decision regarding the regulation of lorry braking safety and introduce a mandatory test of braking safety at the six month interim between the annual MOT tests of general roadworthiness; what is the current availability of the equipment for such tests; and what is the cost per axle tested. [15529]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans at present to introduce a mandatory six month brake test, although I will keep that option under review. It is the responsibility of vehicle operators to look after their vehicles properly and there are plenty of test facilities available to help them do so. The vehicle inspectorate's current charge to operators for voluntary roller brake testing is £6 per axle.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the prospective bidders for the first eight passenger train operators who have sought to pre-qualify for franchises in respect of the announcement 316
  made in December 1994. [15746]

  Mr. Watts
  The Franchising Director announced today that 37 organisations have applied to pre-qualify for the first group of eight passenger rail franchises, and that many applicants are interested in more than one franchise, taking the total number of applications to more than 160. Under section 145 of the Railways Act 1993 the identity of any individual applicants cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects OPRAF to agree the criteria against which a passenger scheme requirement will be determined for each of the train operating units. [15743]

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, following his instructions of 22 March 1994 if he will place in the Library a copy of the criteria which were submitted to him by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in respect of deciding appropriate service specifications for loss-making services; and if he will make a statement. [15138]

  Mr. Watts
  The guidance issued to the Franchising Director requires him to ensure that passenger service requirements for the first franchises are based upon the timetable being operated by BR immediately prior to franchising. A copy of an explanatory note setting out the Franchising Director's approach to and criteria for setting these passenger service requirements has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the guidance requires the Franchising Director to develop criteria for evaluating the benefits obtained from the provision of loss making services. These criteria are intended to detail the long term basis on which the Franchising Director will make decisions about support for loss-making services as the passenger network develops over time. The Franchising Director expects to submit proposed criteria to the Secretary of State in due course.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the companies which applied for pre-qualification for each of the first eight train franchises. [15517]

  Mr. Watts
  The Franchising Director has announced today that 37 organisations have applied to be pre-qualify for the first group of eight passenger rail franchises, and that many applicants are interested in more than one franchise taking the total number of applications to over 160. To preserve commercial confidentiality individual applicants will not be named, nor will the number of applicants for each franchise be given.

  ScotRail Passenger Services
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date when the passenger service requirement for ScotRail will be announced. [15744]

  Mr. Watts
  In early summer.

  Sleeper Services
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions took place with OPRAF and British Rail when decisions were taken to exclude(a) the Motorail service and (b) the Fort William sleeper from the passenger scheme requirement of ScotRail; and what discussions took place before the decision to end bookings

  317
  for these services. [15745]

  Mr. Watts
  Regular meetings are held between OPRAF and British Rail to discuss a wide range of issues. The decision to withdraw Motorail services and the London—Fort William sleeper service from May was taken by BR on commercial grounds.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what statutory powers the Director of Franchising and OPRAF were acting when the decision was taken to exclude the Fort William sleeper and Motorail services from the passenger service requirement for ScotRail. [15747]

  Mr. Watts
  In indicating that he would not include the Fort William sleeper service and Motorail services in the draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail, the Franchising Director was acting within the bounds of the statutory objectives, instructions and guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on 22 March 1994 in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Railways Act 1993.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the additional costs associated with maintenance of the(a) Fort William to London sleeper service, (b) Carlisle to London sleeper service and (c) Scotland to London motorail services, for the purpose of an eight week consultation period commencing in May, indicating the financial assumptions involved; and if he will make a statement; [15139]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the costs associated with the closure of the (a) Fort William to London sleeper service, (b) Carlisle to London sleeper service and (c) Scotland to London motorail services; and if he will make a statement; [15141]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the start up costs associated with re-opening, after May, the (a) Fort William to London sleeper service, (b) Carlisle to London sleeper service and (c) Scotland to London Motorail services; and if he will make a statement. [15140]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has not made any such assessments on estimates. The decision to withdraw Motorail services and the sleeper service between London and Carlisle and London and Fort William from 28 May was a commercial decision by British Rail. It has undertaken to retain the assets needed to run these services so that they can be restored if the Franchising Director decides to include them in the passenger service requirement for the ScotRail franchise.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will ensure that the inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road is based on a re-assessment of traffic models and growth forecasts; [15257]

  (2) what account he has taken of the effects of congestion of the traffic model assumption in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road which assumes that for roads which are full traffic will grow at a reduced rate; [15255]

  (3) on what basis traffic modellers have ignored heavy goods vehicles in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road; and if he will make a statement; [15254]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of an (a) untolled and (b) tolled west orbital road in respect of
  318
  the Birmingham northern relief road. [15256]

  Mr. Watts
  These are matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 23 March 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for information about the traffic modelling used for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road.
  We are satisfied that the traffic model uses a robust methodology and has taken account of significant changes, such as the SACTRA report, which have arisen since the draft Orders were published. The ongoing public inquiry into the proposals has received much information on traffic flows and techniques. It will be for the Inspector to form his own judgement on that evidence.
  The Original (February 1994) BNRR traffic forecasts assumed a tolled Western Orbital Route. The latest (November 1994) forecasts assume a WOR that will be free to motorists. The traffic impacts of these differing assumptions are contained in evidence placed before the inquiry.
  HGVs are not ignored in the traffic model. Tests established the most appropriate methodology for the evaluation of the BNRR proposals; this ensures the most realistic estimate of HGV routing. Details of the methodology used have been presented to the inquiry.
  The traffic model takes account of the capacity of the roads in the area. Reduced growth rates have been assumed for all journeys with one or both ends in the conurbation, in line with assumptions made by local highway authorities in the conurbation.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set targets for the phasing out of HFCs. [14984]

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no plans to phase out HFCs, nor to set targets for phaseout. HFCs have been developed as alternatives to some ozone-depleting substances and are an important part of the solution to the problem of depletion of the ozone layer. However, HFCs are also greenhouse gases and the Government are discussing with industry the scope for voluntary agreements to limit HFC emissions and to ensure that HFCs are not used where emissions are unavoidable if safe, practical and more environmental acceptable alternatives are available.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what qualities he will look for in appointing a new chair of the revamped Local Government Commission. [15058]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 21 March my right hon. Friend announced the appointment of Sir David Cooksey to the chairmanship of the Local Government Commission,Official Report, column 145. I believe Sir David has all the qualities required of the chairman, and I note that his appointment was immediately welcomed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the English counties, following the current reorganisation of local government, that will have no administrative function but will have a
  319
  lord lieutenant and sheriff; [15072]

  (2) if he will list the English counties, following the current reorganisation of local government, which are to be extended beyond their administrative boundaries for ceremonial purposes and where lords lieutenant and sheriffs will have jurisdiction over the wider area; [15070]

  (3) if he will list the English counties, following the current reorganisation of local government, that will have no functions. [15071]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Decisions have not yet been taken in all cases. However, I expect that the only county areas without any county councils but with their own lords lieutenant will be Berkshire and East Yorkshire. Most areas whose local authority is granted unitary powers will be deemed to be part of a neighbouring county area for ceremonial purposes.

  In those areas for which structure orders have been made, North West Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset will be deemed to be part of Somerset; South Gloucestershire will be deemed to be part of Gloucestershire; North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire will be deemed to be part of Lincolnshire; York will be deemed to be part of North Yorkshire; and Hull will be deemed to be part of East Yorkshire. We are still considering the ceremonial arrangements for Cleveland.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the English county councils which have their own lord lieutenant and sheriff. [15073]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A lord lieutenant and high sheriff are appointed to the following counties:

  Greater London

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  South Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Liecestershire

  320

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shopshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Air Pollution
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place with his European ministerial counterparts concerning the need to reduce levels of air pollution. [15127]

  Mr. Atkins
  I maintain regular contacts with my European ministerial counterparts on all aspects of environmental protection, including air pollution. Most recently, I met my European Community counterparts in Brussels on 9 March at the meeting of the Environment Council. We had a fruitful discussion on a number of issues related to air pollution, including the proposed directive on integrated pollution prevention and control and the proposed framework directive on ambient air quality assessment and management.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to reduce levels of air pollution; and if he will make a statement. [15133]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government announced their strategic policies for managing air quality in the document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", published on 19 January. Copies are available in the House Libraries. Those policies are aimed at delivering sustainable improvements in air quality throughout the UK. Proposals include a framework of national air quality standards, a new system of local air quality assessment and management and an action plan for transport.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of(a) grant in aid, (b) internal income generated and (c) total budget for the National Rivers Authority for each year since its establishment. [15321]

  Mr. Atkins
  The level of grant in aid, income generated from charges and levies and total expenditure of the National Rivers authority are:

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Grant-in-aid

  Income from charges and levies

  Total expenditure1

  1989–90

  74.3

  267.9

  2339.8

  1990–91

  99.5

  274.9

  2368.7

  1991–92

  83.9

  300.4

  2422.9

  1992–93

  74.7

  335.9

  2428.6

  321

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Grant-in-aid

  Income from charges and levies

  Total expenditure1

  1993–94

  61.2

  343.1

  3466.5

  1994–95

  67.9

  295.6

  3455.4

  Note:

  1 Total expenditure does not equal the sum of grant in aid and income from charges and levies because of end year balances and flood defence capital grant.

  2 Actual

  3 Budget

  Sources:

  (a) DOE departmental reports

  (b) and (c) NRA corporate plan 1994–95

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of people working(a) full time and (b) part time for the National Rivers Authority in each year since it was established. [15322]

  Mr. Atkins
  The NRA does not separately record numbers of part-time staff. The data show permanent staff, including part-time staff, and temporary staff, including those working for limited periods and those on fixed term contracts:

  Permanent staff

  Temporary staff

  31 March 1990

  6,382

  153

  31 March 1991

  6,886

  476

  31 March 1992

  7,568

  581

  31 March 1993

  7,483

  758

  31 March 1994

  7,072

  637

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each of the major establishments which are part of the National Rivers Authority, giving number of employees and budget for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 in 1994 prices. [15316]

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of people employed by the National Rivers Authority on each of its functions is:

  Number of employees

  Function

  (a)1993–94 number

  (b)1994–95 number

  (c)1995–96 number

  Water Quality

  1,298

  1,279

  1,242

  Water Resources

  788

  802

  791

  Flood Defence

  3,094

  2,970

  2,948

  Fisheries

  526

  522

  511

  Conservation

  87

  92

  91

  Navigation

  85

  84

  84

  Recreation

  29

  31

  30

  Support Services

  1,451

  1,345

  1,326

  National Centres

  351

  397

  397

  Total

  7,709

  7,522

  7,420

  Source:

  NRA.
  322
  The National Rivers Authority's budget for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 at 1994–95 prices is:

  Budget in 1994–95 prices

  Function

  (a) 1993–94 £ million

  (b) 1994–95 £ million

  (c) 1995–96 £ million

  Water Quality

  89.7

  88.1

  83.5

  Water Resources

  80.8

  75.4

  72.1

  Flood Defence

  255.4

  242.0

  237.7

  Fisheries

  24.5

  21.6

  21.1

  Conservation

  3.5

  3.5

  3.3

  Navigation

  7.5

  6.0

  5.8

  Recreation

  2.3

  2.1

  1.8

  Other

  12.2

  16.7

  12.2

  Total

  475.9

  455.4

  437.5

  Source:

  NRA corporate plan 1994–95.

  Regional Water Companies
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each regional water company(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. [15351]

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on the proceeds resulting from privatisation, the market capitalisation at flotation and movement in share values at the end of the first day's trading in shares in the 10 water holding companies in England and Wales, is contained in the National Audit Office report "Department of the Environment: Sale of the Water Authorities in England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library. Current market values vary according to fluctuations in the share price of the companies. This information is not held by my Department.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to require local authorities to disclose in their annual accounts(a) the number of staff employed, (b) their total remuneration, (c) the number of staff in receipt of remuneration in excess of £10,000 per annum in salary bands of £5,000 and (d) the remuneration of the highest paid chief officer in a format similar to that used in company accounts. [15165]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There is a strong case for local authorities to publish details of the pay of their senior staff in broadly the same way as companies are required to publish details of the pay of their senior employees. However, I am keen to keep the new obligations on local authorities under control.

  My Department is considering what information it would he appropriate for local authorities to publish and the best way for the local authorities to be encouraged to make that information public. Of course, no new stipulations would be introduced without consultation with the local authority associations.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the(a) total staff numbers, (b) total revenue and capital expenditure and (c) local

  323
  authority housing stock in all district authorities in East and West Sussex. [14890]

  East and West Sussex

  (a) Total staff as at March 1994

  (b)1 Net revenue expenditure 1993–94 outturn £000

  (b)2 Total capital expenditure 1993–94 £000

  (c)3 Dwelling stock as at 1 April 1994

  Brighton

  1,845

  23,378

  14,945

  10,507

  Eastbourne

  666

  10,970

  7,834

  4,771

  Hastings

  787

  10,440

  5,648

  4,671

  Hove

  555

  11,357

  4,763

  3,505

  Lewes

  429

  8,563

  3,748

  3,923

  Rother

  375

  8,579

  4,738

  3,355

  Wealden

  520

  13,013

  6,179

  3,849

  Adur

  472

  6,048

  3,431

  3,316

  Arun

  586

  13,634

  8,234

  4,202

  Chichester

  n/a

  13,516

  9,087

  6,436

  Crawley

  816

  10,448

  5,602

  10,389

  Horsham

  558

  9,505

  13,713

  5,435

  Mid Sussex

  n/a

  9,333

  2,875

  0

  Worthing

  645

  9,567

  3,609

  2,705

  Notes:

  (1),(2) Revenue expenditure and capital expenditure cannot be added together to give a "total" expenditure figure at an individual authority level. This is because some of the capital expenditure is funded from revenue.

  (1) Net revenue expenditure is expenditure on recurring items including the running of services and capital financing. It excludes spending funded by special and specific grants and income from licence fees, etcetera. This is the expenditure figure to compare to standard spending assessment.

  (2) This is gross capital expenditure on all services, including housing, and includes expenditure reimbursed by grants and expenditure financed from revenue.

  (3) Includes dwellings owned by the named local authority but which are situated outside of this local authority's area.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals for local authority participation in companies and for amending the capital finance regulations. [16203]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995 and the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 have today been laid before Parliament. These implement the package of proposals to encourage closer partnership between local authorities and the private sector, announced by my right hon. Friend on 31 October 1994.

  The Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995 establishes a regime for local authority participation in companies, under which those companies, including companies limited by guarantee, which are led by the private sector will be subject to few controls other than those applicable generally under the Companies Acts. We are providing in the regime transitional provisions for local authority companies established before 1 April 1995, and we are also allowing certain exemptions.

  The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 make a number of changes to the local authority capital finance rules, with the intention of promoting the use of private finance.

  The order and regulations laid take account of extensive consultation conducted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales with the local authority associations, individual local authorities, and other interested parties. The main changes made following this will:
  324
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The available information is:

  free authorities of all subsequent capital finance impact from a company's operations provided it leaves the public sector, permanently, by 31 March 1996.
  increase to 75 per cent. the usable proportion of receipts of sale of local authority shareholdings in airport companies arising before 1 April 1997, and in bus companies arising before 31 March 1996. This was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 3 March, Official Report, column 732.
  allow authorities holding leases of non-housing property taken out before 1988 to extend them for up to 10 years without capital costs.
  allow authorities to transfer assets to companies in return for a mixed consideration of cash and shares, without needing to set resources aside in relation to the shares.

  The regulations also introduce other beneficial changes which reflect consultations with and representations from local authorities. These will:
  allow authorities to renew, for up to two years without capital cost, leases on privately owned homes expiring after 20 December 1994. This will enable authorities to continue present arrangements by renewing short-term leases on good quality homes in the private rented sector, rather than using bed-and-breakfast hotels to provide temporary accommodation. The use of bed and breakfast accommodation has fallen by 43 per cent. over two years.
  allow costs of computer software to be capitalised.

  In addition, there are many clarificatory and drafting changes.

  I will also be laying before Parliament later in the year further regulations which will have the effect of increasing to 90 per cent. the usable proportion of local authorities' receipts from sales of car parks and retail property arising between 1 September 1995 and 31 August 1996.

  Thus local authorities and prospective private sector partners can now look forward to a total of four targeted

  325
  reductions in set-aside to take effect during this year. It is up to authorities to take advantage of these and to persuade us of the case for others.

  I have been impressed by the strength and depth of partnership arrangements already established by many local authorities with the private sector. The changes I am now making will support those initiatives and give authorities even greater scope to harness the private sector's investment potential and management skills in delivering capital projects.

  We regard this improved package of measures as just a start. We shall be looking at other areas of the capital finance regulations, in particular those relating to allowance of cost deductions from capital receipts before set-aside is calculated, with a view to further amendments later in the year.

  I have arranged for copies of two documents which summarise the new measures—"New Private Finance Rules for Local Authorities" and "A Guide to Local Authorities' Interests in Companies"—to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 English districts with the lowest total capital and revenue expenditure. [14891]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: Revenue expenditure and capital expenditure cannot be added together to give a "total" expenditure figure at an individual authority level. This is because some of the capital expenditure is funded from revenue.

  The available information is.

  The 10 English Districts with lowest Total Capital Expenditure in 1993–94

  £000

  Oadby and Wigston

  1,120

  Epsom and Ewell

  1,187

  Castle Point

  1,276

  Rutland

  1,378

  Bromsgrove

  1,378

  West Somerset

  1,491

  Oswestry

  1,513

  Castle Morpeth

  1,514

  West Devon

  1,525

  South Herefordshire

  1,606

  Total capital expenditure

  This is gross capital expenditure on all services, including housing, and includes expenditure reimbursed by grants and expenditure financed from revenue.

  The 10 English Districts with the lowest net revenue expenditure in 1993–94—outturn

  £000

  Wellingborough

  171

  Berwick Upon Tweed

  2,263

  Teesdale

  2,595

  Alnwick

  2,776

  Rutland

  2,859

  Oswestry

  2,995

  Tamworth

  3,035

  326

  The 10 English Districts with the lowest net revenue expenditure in 1993–94—outturn

  £000

  Christchurch

  3,227

  Purbeck

  3,278

  Leominster

  3,570

  Net revenue expenditure:

  This is expenditure on recurring items including the running of services and capital financing. It excludes spending funded by special and specific grants and income from fees and charges, interest, etcetera. This is the expenditure figure to compare to SSA.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority in England, the latest available net revenue expenditure figures to compare with standard spending assessment, broken down by broad service block, in each year since 1990–91; and if he will place this information in the Library in personal computer spreadsheet readable format. [14574]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I have placed the information in the Library of the House.

  Housing Partnership Schemes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what application he has had for housing partnership schemes from the Isle of Wight; and when he expects to make an announcement. [15851]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department has received three applications under the housing partnership fund from the Isle of Wight. The successful schemes for the 1995–96 housing partnership fund are being announced today, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Member that the Hansford store conversion scheme in Ryde is to be allocated £177,000 to redevelop part of a redundant furniture store into 15 flats.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the allocation of resources to local authorities under his Department's housing partnership fund for 1995–96. [16204]

  Mr. Curry
  Some 220 schemes in 170 housing authorities will benefit from £30 million housing partnership fund for 1995–96.

  Councils continue to be very enthusiastic about the scheme. This year we received over 740 bids. The scheme demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting imaginative high-quality housing projects which will be of long-lasting benefit to local communities.

  The successful bids involve a wide range of innovative and valuable housing projects, which address local housing needs. This year we have particularly focused on schemes to bring empty properties back into use and those which effect major energy efficiency improvements. The schemes have been put together in partnership with the private sector, housing associations and other local organisations.

  The combination of public and private sector money means that up to £108 million will be invested to meet local housing need, help stimulate local economic growth and create jobs.

  A list of the resources being allocated to local authorities under the housing partnerships fund for 1995–96 has been placed in the Library.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will list, by water company, the percentage 1995–96 price increase for water and sewerage charges for(a)

  Percentage change in Water and Sewerage Services 1995–96 on 1994–95

  Water

  Sewerage

  Unmeasured

  Measured

  Unmeasured

  Measured

  Anglian Water Services Ltd.

  6.6

  2.0

  8.3

  4.5

  Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig

  1.0

  0.3

  5.2

  4.2

  North West Water Ltd.

  6.3

  0.0

  7.3

  6.7

  Northumbrian Water Ltd.

  7.1

  0.2

  5.4

  5.7

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  2.5

  0.7

  7.5

  -2.1

  South West Water Services Ltd.

  5.3

  -8.1

  5.3

  -9.3

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  7.7

  12.0

  7.2

  -0.1

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  4.3

  -1.0

  7.4

  -0.7

  Wessex Water Services Ltd.

  6.2

  3.0

  4.2

  2.8

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  2.3

  3.3

  14.0

  2.4

  Bournemouth and W Hampshire Water Cos.

  1.6

  0.2

  —

  —

  Bristol Water plc

  6.4

  -12.6

  —

  —

  Cambridge Water Co.

  2.0

  -0.5

  —

  —

  Chester Waterworks Co.

  0.8

  0.0

  —

  —

  Cholderton and District Water Co. Ltd.

  2.7

  0.0

  —

  —

  East Surrey Water plc

  2.2

  1.9

  —

  —

  Essex and Suffolk Water plc

  7.2

  -13.4

  —

  —

  Folkestone and Dover Water Services Ltd.

  5.2

  2.9

  —

  —

  Hartlepool Water plc

  4.9

  -15.6

  —

  —

  Mid Kent Water plc

  4.0

  -1.7

  —

  —

  Mid Southern Water plc

  2.7

  -3.9

  —

  —

  North East Water plc

  2.4

  -2.0

  —

  —

  North Surrey Water Ltd.

  6.5

  -5.1

  —

  —

  Portsmouth Water plc-April-March tariff

  2.9

  -6.5

  —

  —

  South East Water Ltd.

  2.3

  -9.6

  —

  —

  South Staffordshire Water plc

  0.0

  -14.0

  —

  —

  Sutton District Water plc

  2.0

  -16.1

  —

  —

  Tendring Hundred Water Services Ltd.

  2.2

  -2.2

  —

  —

  Three Valleys Water Services plc

  9.9

  -3.7

  —

  —

  Wrexham and E Denbighshire Water plc

  1.0

  -4.2

  —

  —

  Yorkshire Waterworks plc

  2.3

  -13.9

  —

  —

  PSA Projects
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what adjustments have been made to the value of the liabilities retained by Government following the sale of the former PSA Projects business. [16475]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Two reductions have been made to these liabilities in line with the terms of the sale agreement for PSA Projects. First, the limit on the Government's liability to contribute to the costs of redundancies of staff formerly employed in PSA Projects has been reduced by £800,00 to £39.5 million, as calculated by using the formula in the sale agreement. This follows a correction to the previously reported transferring staff total to 704. Secondly, there has been a consequential reduction of £200,000 to £4.34 million in the consideration adjustment due to the purchaser on the first anniversary of the sale.

DEFENCE

  Nerve Agent Destruction
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of progress in development
  328
  domestic customers paying water rates, (b) domestic customers paying by water meter and (c) commercial customers. [15782]

  Mr. Atkins
  The information relating to domestic customers is shown. Information about charge increases for commercial customers is not held centrally.

  of the Silver II electro-chemical disposal method; and if he will make a statement. [14407]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 23 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of progress in development of the silver II electro-chemical disposal method and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. CBDE, working in close collaboration with AEA Technology, has undertaken an initial evaluation of the efficacy of the silver II process. Extensive laboratory tests successfully demonstrated that the method is suitable for the destruction of a range of CW agents including nerve agent and mustard gas. A pilot plant at Dounreay has carried out extensive experimental work with simulants and it is planned, subject to funding approval, to build a similar plant at Porton Down this summer. This would be used to prove the technique on a larger scale using live agents. If this trial is successful, the plant could he used to destroy agent from old CW munitions found within the UK. The process has a number of potential advantages for the destruction of chemical agents. It is an

  329
  intrinsically safe process as the procedure stops as soon as the supply of electricity is switched off and the process is carried out at relatively low temperatures ie below 100°C. The volume of effluent is minimal and, because the organic matter is totally oxidised, consists of an aqueous solution of inorganic salts. The method should allow complete decontamination of CW munitions, including their explosive content, regardless of their nature.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the potential cost savings to the United Kingdom Exchequer of the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland. [14842]

  Mr. Soames
  The units withdrawn from Northern Ireland remain on standby to return, should there be a resumption of terrorist violence. Significant cost savings will not arise until progress towards a permanent peace justifies permanent withdrawals.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the payment of commissions to those involved in the sale of arms to overseas Governments in respect of(a) civil servants, (b) members of the Government, (c) Members of Parliament and (d) relatives of Members of Parliament of the country concerned; and if he will make a statement. [15054]

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Government do not pay commissions to those involved in arms sales. I cannot comment on other countries' requirements or conventions on the payment of commissions to their nationals.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of black or Asian(a) warrant officers and (b) commissioned officers up to the rank of (i) captain, (ii) colonel and (iii) field-marshal or equivalent ranks serving in Her Majesty's forces. [14899]

  Mr. Soames
  According to the results of the ethnic origin survey of the regular armed forces, based on the 57 per cent. of responses received as at 1 October last year the following numbers of personnel classified themselves as black or Asian:

  Black

  Asian

  Warrant officer or equivalent Commissioned officers:

  64

  40

  up to the rank of captain or equivalent

  59

  94

  Major to colonel or equivalent

  31

  66

  Brigadier to field marshal or equivalent

  1—

  1—

  1 Figure less than 5. Where numbers are less than 5, figures are not given in order to avoid individuals being identified.

  The first results of ethnic origin survey of the regular armed forces, giving percentage figures, have been published in the new tri-service personnel statistical return entitled "Ethnic Composition of the Regular Armed Forces", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all surplus Ministry of Defence land sold in the last 12 months with the names of the 330
  purchasers; what surplus land is currently for sale; and if he will make a statement about his Department's policy towards the disposal of surplus land. [15212]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  HMS Sirius
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's instructions for the future use of HMS Sirius; and if he will make a statement.
  [15444]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 815–16. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Sirius was built and at what cost, together with the dates and costs of subsequent maintenance and refits. [15445]

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Sirius was accepted from the shipbuilder, HM Dockyard Portsmouth, in June 1966. Acquisition cost details for the ship are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dates of major maintenance and refits carried out on HMS Sirius are set out in the table. Details of routine and operational maintenance, and the costs of refit and maintenance work carried out before the royal dockyards passed into commercial management in April 1987 are not available. The total cost of her last major maintenance period, undertaken between October and December 1987, was some £1.2 million. The total cost of the final refit, undertaken between October 1989 and May 1991, was in the region of £25 million.

  Major maintenane Periods

  19 November 1967 to 5 January 1968

  2 March 1970 to 23 March 1970

  22 February 1971 to 19 March 1971

  30 May 1973 to 22 June 1973

  29 February 1980 to 31 March 1980

  28 October 1987 to 11 December 1987

  Refits

  18 August 1969 to 12 December 1969

  10 January 1972 to 26 May 1972

  10 March 1975 to 10 February 1978

  5 May 1981 to 30 June 1982

  15 April 1985 to 6 December 1985

  23 October 1987 to 19 May 1991

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of unoccupied homes under the control of his Ministry as at 1 July 1994 and at 1 January 1995 in each local housing authority area in England. Wales and Scotland. [15834]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Plymouth Airport (Training Flights)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost to his Department
  331
  for services at Plymouth airport in connection with Royal Navy training flights. [15778]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of Royal Navy training flights at Plymouth airport is £626,000 per annum.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the need to carry out Royal Navy training flights from Plymouth airport; and if he will make a statement. [15779]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no recent assessment of the need to carry out Royal Navy training flights from Plymouth airport.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost to his Department of Sea King helicopters using Plymouth airport in relation to sea training. [15777]

  Mr. Soames
  The transfer of flag officer sea training from Portland to Plymouth in September this year will require the continuation of certain aviation support. Various options for the provision of the service are being investigated, including the use of civil aircraft under contract operating out of Plymouth airport, but comparative cost are not yet available.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans he has for the future of flying training in the Royal Air Force. [16378]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the issue of consultative documents on 17 November 1994 recommending the closure of RAF Scampton and RAF Finningley, representations have been made by local authorities, Members of Parliament and members of the public. My Department has consulted thoroughly with the trade unions and those local authorities closely associated with the stations, and full and careful consideration has been given to all of the representations that we have received.

  Following this work, I am satisfied that no issues have been raised which call into question the viability of the proposals, which satisfactorily meet out future flying training needs and save £23,000,000 per annum. I have therefore decided that both RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton should close in April 1996, and that all future non-fast jet fixed wing fixed flying training will be undertaken at RAF Cranwell and RAF Linton-on-Ouse.

  We will, of course, continue to consult the trade unions about the detailed implementation of these measures.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that there is sufficient abattoir capacity for farmers in Devon. [13886]

  Mrs. Browning
  I know the area well. I know that the replacement of an old abattior with a new one will be welcome in east Devon..

  Calves (Human Food)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his 332
  policy to ban the brain and spinal cords of calves under the age of six months from going into human food. [13889]

  Mrs. Browning
  In a large experimental study of the pathogenesis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, no infectivity has been demonstrated in the brain and spinal cord in calves two and six months after oral challenge with a large dose of BSE-infected cow brain at four months of age. We would, of course, act in response to scientific advice if there were to be any new evidence.

  Tobacco Regime
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the common agricultural policy tobacco regime in 1995. [13892]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest estimate is around £900 million.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to review the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. [13896]

  Mr. Jack
  Agriculture Ministers expect to review the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances which will apply for the 1996 scheme this autumn, as part of the annual review of public expenditure.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the farming unions about the payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [13879]

  Mr. Jack
  We invariably consult the farming industry before we determine HLCA rates or make any changes to the scheme and listen carefully to what it says.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to improve the welfare of livestock in the European Union. [13897]

  Mrs. Browning
  In response to my right hon. Friend's request in January, the European Commission is bringing forward from 1997 to this year its report to the Council reviewing directive 91/629 on the welfare of calves. The resulting discussions in the Council of Ministers will provide the opportunity to press again for Community-wide standards which rule out the use of the veal crate, which has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1990, I have visited Ministers in other member states to enlist support for our opposition to the veal crate and the response has, in many cases, been encouraging.

  In the continuing Council negotiations on the welfare of animals in transit, we shall persevere in refusing to accept unsatisfactory compromises, and in pressing for a satisfactory Community measure which includes journey limits.

  Animals (Human Genes)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were reared in the United Kingdom last year following the incorporation of
  333
  human genes in their genetic make-up; and whether he will take steps to have food products marked accordingly. [13898]

  Mrs. Browning
  The statistical information sought is not readily available. However, no animals containing copy genes of human origin have been cleared for food use in the UK. I can assure the hon. Member that if any such clearance was to be given, a labelling requirement would be imposed so as to allow consumers to make an informed choice.

  Horses
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that the minimum value rule for horses exported to continental Europe remains; and if he will make a statement. [13900]

  Mrs. Browning
  Council directive 91/628 on the welfare of animals during transport contains a provision, for which we fought hard in the negotiations, which allows our national rules on the export of equines to continue. We shall resist very strongly any proposal to revoke or amend this provision.

  EC Grubbing-up Scheme
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the uptake of the latest EC grubbing-up scheme in the United Kingdom. [13901]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest EC apple orchard grubbing-up grant scheme was open to applications in the UK during 25 October to 1 December 1994 and 13 to 31 January 1995. Some 318 applications covering 2,777 hectares were received. By the end of February, 260 covering 2,343 hectares, had been approved and 32 covering 133 hectares had been either rejected or withdrawn. The remaining applications were still being processed.

  Approval of an application does not carry an obligation to grub. That is a decision for the applicant. Consequently, we shall not know the uptake of the scheme for several months.

  Live Animal Exports
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of live farm animals exported from the United Kingdom for slaughter in other EU member states in(a) 1979 and (b) 1994. [13903]

  Mrs. Browning
  Official trade statistics for the total number of livestock, in thousand head, exported from the United Kingdom to other EU member states are as follows;

  1979

  January to November 1994

  Cattle

  505

  463

  Sheep

  445

  896

  Pigs

  37

  172

  Poultry

  3,731

  19,642

  These statistics do not distinguish animals for slaughter or for fattening. Figures for 1979 include exports to Spain, Greece and Portugal which joined the EU after this date, but all figures exclude exports to the member states that
  334
  joined the EU in 1995. Figures for 1994 are provisional and are thought to under-record the true level of exports.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has had to the rural White Paper consultation exercise. [13889]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have received about 350 written submissions. Views have also been expressed in a series of regional and subject seminars.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent speculators exploiting the shortage of milk quota in the United Kingdom. [13899]

  Mr. Jack
  There is no evidence to support allegations of speculation in milk quotas. Milk quota may be leased only between producers who are registered with the Intervention Board; while quota may be purchased only by producers actively involved in milk production or by those who acquire, on a permanent basis, the land to which milk quota is attached.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the weekly cost of all agricultural support for a family of four in(a) 1965, (b) 1975, (c) 1985 and (d) currently.

  Mr. Jack
  A note entitled "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Taxpayers and Consumers", produced by my Department, was deposited in the Library of the House on 9 March. This gives estimates of the cost to UK consumers and taxpayers of all forms of agricultural support of £4.15 per person per week in 1993, the most recent year for which information is available. The equivalent figure for 1985 is estimated at £2.39 per person per week. Both estimates include national agricultural expenditures as well as transfers resulting from the operation of the CAP. These estimates are based on calculations of total transfers resulting from agricultural policies in the European Union, made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Comparable figures for 1975 are not available. The estimates are likely to overstate the savings which could be made by consumers and taxpayers if agricultural support policies were removed, because, in the absence of support, world prices would be higher than at present.

  In 1965, the UK operated a system of deficiency payments. The cost to UK taxpayers of these and other measures was equivalent to £0.08 per person per week—or £0.82 per person per week in 1994 prices. In addition, there were a number of policies which had the effect of raising prices to consumers. It is not possible to quantify these costs, but it is likely that they were smaller in real terms than the present consumer costs of the CAP.

  Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suicides there have been in
  335
  the English farming community in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14258]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is set out in the table.

  Suicides of farmers and farm workers in England

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Farmers

  32

  33

  36

  31

  31

  163

  Farm workers

  21

  21

  18

  17

  14

  91

  Total

  53

  54

  54

  48

  45

  254

  Source:

  OPCS

  The relatively high rate of suicides among farmers is, of course, a cause of concern and with other agencies we are seeking means to reduce it. However, the underlying causes are many, and there is no single solution to this complex issue.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of cases of ectoparasitic infection in sheep for(a) the two years before compulsory dipping was abolished and (b) the two years since compulsory dipping was abolished. [14570]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 25 January 1995,Official Report, column 215, for the number of cases of sheep scab during the period in question.

  Other ectoparasitic infections of sheep have never been notifiable in England and consequently information on the number of cases of these diseases is not available.

  Farm Investigation, Derbyshire
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish information held in his Department and all readings for levels of sulphur, molydenum, fluorides and dioxins at the farm of Wareing Bros., the Breck, Barrow Hill, Chesterfield, Derbyshire since 1984. [14557]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The results of investigations undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on behalf of individual farmers are not published for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The Ministry, as part of its own investigations, took samples of milk for dioxin analysis in April 1991 and May 1993 from several farms in the Bolsover and Staveley areas, including the Breck. The Ministry published the results of these surveys for dioxins in August 1992 and May 1993 respectively. Mr. M. J. Wareing was informed of the dioxin levels in the samples which he provided.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make assessments and publish a report on investigations undertaken by the veterinary investigation service, ADAS, the alkali inspector, HM inspectorate of pollution and environmental health officers into the farm of Wareing Bros., the Breck, Barrow Hill, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, since 1984. [14560]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: No, reports on the investigations carried out by the veterinary
  336
  investigation service and ADAS, as for similar investigations into individual animal disease outbreaks, contain information which is inappropriate for disclosure on commercial confidentiality and other grounds. The alkali inspector, HM inspectorate of pollution and environmental health officers are not a part of MAFF and it is up to those organisations to decide whether to make any information they hold public.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the records he holds on cattle reared on the farm of Wareing Bros., the Breck, Barrow Hill, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, since 1984, including details of stillborn calves, calves born with eye defects and cattle which have not been able to be sold directly to market since the introduction of the Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulation 1991. [14561]

  Mrs. Angela Browning
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: No, reports on the investigations carried out by the veterinary investigation service, as for similar investigations into individual animal disease outbreaks, contain information which is inappropriate for disclosure on commercial confidentiality and other grounds.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make assessments and publish a report on the impact of sulphurs, molydenum, fluorides and dioxins on crops, soil, cattle, residents and workers at the farm of Wareing Bros., the Breck, Barrow Hill Chesterfield, Derbyshire and in its vicinity; and if he will take steps to recommend a spray programme for the crops and fodder at the farm. [14562]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: It is appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to undertake such assessments only if issues of public concern such as food safety are involved. No evidence exists to indicate that this is the Breck or other farms in its vicinity as, for example, the levels of dioxins in cows milk taken from the Breck in April 1991 and May 1993 were within the normal background range for milk in the UK. It is not the Ministry's responsibility to provide advice on a spray programme for crops and fodder on the Breck as this information is available from commercial consultants.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring arrangements are in place to assess whether vulnerable groups are reducing their consumption of fuel as a result of the imposition of VAT. [14979]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None, the family expenditure survey, published by the Central Statistical Office, provides estimates of spending patterns of households in the United Kingdom.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to increase earnings disregards.
  337
  Mr. Roger Evans
  From April 1996 we propose that couples receiving income support or jobseeker's allowance should have the first £10 of their earnings in any week disregarded, rather than the current £5 each. From October 1996 we will also be introducing the back to work bonus, which will provide a lump sum payment of up to £1,000 to claimants with earnings above the disregard when they move off benefit into work.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in north Tyneside are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit. [14556]

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

  Letter from Tony Laurence to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 22 March 1995:
  As Michael Bichard is on leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) recipients in North Tyneside.
  The information is not available in the form requested. This is because Benefits Agency (BA) District areas do not correspond with county or borough boundaries.
  The BA North Tyneside District, comprising North Shields District Office (DO) and Wallsend Branch Office (BO), has responsibility for administering claims for almost all IVB customers resident in the North Tyneside District Council administrative area.
  However, that District also deals with a small number of IVB customers who reside within the Newcastle City Council administrative area. Furthermore, the Newcastle East Branch Office of the BA Newcastle District also deals with a small number of IVB customers resident in the North Tyneside District Council area. Figures relating specifically to these small groups of customers would only be available at disproportionate cost.
  For this reason, I am providing the latest figures available for IVB customers within the BA North Tyneside District only:-

  Number of IVB Customers in North Tyneside District at 28 February 1995

  Number

  North Shields DO

  4,501

  Wallsend BO

  3,504

  Total

  8,005

  These figures include a very small number of customers who are entitled to IVB but are not actually receiving it because they are receiving an overlapping benefit (such as Widows Benefit) payable at a higher rate.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving invalidity benefit in the Rhondda benefit district; what percentage this is of the total population of working age; and what are the average percentages for(a) Wales and (b) England and Wales. [14845]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  338
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table A: People in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Taff Rhondda District Office area on the last working day of February 1995

  Number

  Taff Rhondda District Office

  18,235

  Notes:

  1. Figures obtained from 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the Benefits Agency offices.

  2. 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.

  Table B: People in receipt of invalidity benefit on 3 April 1993 by country and percentage of working population

  Country

  People in receipt of invalidity benefit

  Percentage of the working population

  Wales

  172,000

  10

  England

  1,184,000

  4

  England and Wales

  1,356,000

  4

  Notes:

  1. The working population has been taken to be 16 to 64 for men and 16 to 59 for women.

  2. Invalidity benefit information based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Estimated mid-year-1993—population figures supplied by the population estimates unit, OPCS.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates would be the cost to the Exchequer if war pensions awarded to widows continued for their natural life and not until their re-marriage or permanent co-habitation. [14394]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is estimated that the net cost of awarding the war widow's pension for life would be in the order of £100 million in a full year.

  Social Fund
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances participants on Government programmes including training for work and community action can obtain help from the social fund; and if he will make a statement. [15153]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  People who were in receipt of income support prior to starting these programmes continue to be eligible to apply to the social fund. Such people will be eligible for awards of both community care grants and budgeting loans. People can apply to the social fund for crisis loans whether or not they are in receipt of an income-related benefit.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to make social fund loans available for the purchase of gardening equipment, allotment rents and seed, so that people can begin to grow their own vegetables. [15262]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In considering whether or not to make an award from the fund, social fund officers are required to take account of the nature, extent and urgency of the need. Although loans for gardening equipment are not excluded, social fund officers take account of all the individual circumstances surrounding each application, as
  339
  well as the priority guidance provided by the Secretary of State and the area social fund officer, when using their discretion to reach a decision.

  21-hour Rule
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many private hours of study should be included by adjudication officers when calculating the 21–hour rule; what counts as private study to be included in the total number of hours studied; when and where the rule about private hours was established; and if he will make a statement. [15157]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A course, for the purpose of the 21-hour rule, is defined in regulations as including time spent receiving instruction of tuition, undertaking supervised study and other course requirements, which does not exceed 21 hours a week. A social security commissioner in a decision dated May 1990, held that, for the purpose of this rule, supervised study can include work set by a supervisor and done privately by the student in his own time.

  Decisions on income support, including the 21-hour rule, are the responsibility of the independent adjudication officers who apply the law and case law taking into account the fact of each individual case.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if participants in training for work or community action who are unable to get jobs after they leave their scheme can immediately take advantage of the 21–hour rule and take up part-time places on education or training courses and retain their right to income support; and if he will make a statement. [15156]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  One of the qualifying conditions for the 21-hour rule is that immediately before the start of the course the claimant was in receipt of income support, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit for three months. People who have completed the learning for work scheme or the community action programme have to satisfy the normal qualifying conditions before they can take advantage of the 21-hour rule concession. Those who receive an element of income support during their participation will be treated in the same way as other income support recipients. The three months in receipt of a qualifying benefit required under the 21-hour rule can therefore include time spent in either scheme.

  Mortgage Interest
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance his Department can provide to unemployed people who, on joining training for work, find that their insurance cover for mortgage, hire purchase and other agreements becomes invalid as they are no longer technically unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [15154]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 22 March at column 251.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the gross domestic product has been spent on social security in each year since 1974. [15168]
  340
  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Total benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP 1974–75 to 1994–95 (cash prices)

  Total benefit expenditure (£ billion)

  Money GDP (£ billion)

  Benefit expenditure as percentage of GDP

  1974–75

  6.6

  89.4

  7.4

  1975–76

  8.9

  111.2

  8.0

  1976–77

  10.6

  130.0

  8.2

  1977–78

  12.8

  151.3

  8.5

  1978–79

  15.9

  173.7

  9.2

  1979–80

  18.8

  208.6

  9.0

  1980–81

  22.7

  237.7

  9.6

  1981–82

  27.7

  261.0

  10.6

  1982–83

  31.6

  285.8

  11.1

  1983–84

  35.3

  310.0

  11.4

  1984–85

  38.3

  332.1

  11.5

  1985–86

  41.8

  364.9

  11.5

  1986–87

  44.9

  392.7

  11.4

  1987–88

  46.7

  434.8

  10.7

  1988–89

  47.3

  484.1

  9.8

  1989–90

  50.2

  525.8

  9.6

  1990–91

  56.5

  556.8

  10.2

  1991–92

  66.1

  580.8

  11.4

  1992–93

  75.2

  604.8

  12.4

  1993–94

  82.4

  639.0

  12.9

  1994–95

  185.2

  678.0

  12.6

  1 Estimated outturn.

WALES

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grant support is available to encourage the development of fibre-optic cabling of towns and villages in Wales; what proportion of Wales now has fibre-optic cable links already established of a standard adequate for the foreseeable needs of the super-highway technological revolution; and what take-up there has been to date of grant support for the further development of this network.

  Mr. Redwood
  Cabling is one of my priorities for Wales. I have been pressing for swifter action on licences. Local delivery franchises have already been awarded for areas covering West Glamorgan, Cardiff and Newport. An announcement about a franchise operator for most of the remainder of mid, south and west Glamorgan and Gwent is expected in the summer. This should be followed by the offer of a franchise for an area of north Wales. My Department does not hold full details of the miles of fibre optic cable in existing networks, but this is known to be significant.

  I have been told by cable companies that radio links may provide high quality access to less densely populated areas. They are also looking at ways of making greater use of existing pylons and telegraph poles. The development of these alternative technologies will, I hope, ensure that the whole of Wales can be linked to the super-highway.

  I will provide grant support for this work in remote areas, if it is needed, through the strategic development scheme and other existing grant schemes. I am looking closely at the powers at my disposal. I am told by those interested that grant availability is not the crucial issue. For remoter areas, technology holds the key.

  Community Pharmacist Dispensing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions were made up by community pharmacists in 1993; and what was the total cash value of these prescriptions. [14667]

  Mr. Richards
  A total of 32.5 million prescription items were dispensed by community pharmacists in 1993 with a total net ingredient cost of £215.4 million. The figures include all items prescribed by hospitals and dispensed in the community and items prescribed by GPs, excluding dispensing doctors, and dentists.

  Drug Treatment Centres
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from psychiatric doctors and other professionals in Wales concerning the inadequacy of treatment centres available in Wales for those suffering from drug dependency; and if he will make a statement. [14669]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has received two letters, both concerning services in Gwynedd.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the number of general dental practitioners in practise in the county of Gwynedd; and how many of these are giving no service on the NHS. [14722]

  Mr. Richards
  Information available centrally relates to the number of general dental practitioners who have some NHS patients on their lists. At 31 December 1994 there were 66 such practitioners in Gwynedd.

  School Balances
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of annual maintenance grants is held in reserve by(a) grant-maintained schools in Wales and (b) non grant-maintained schools. [14734]

  Mr. Richards
  At the end of the 1993–94 financial year, the latest date for which these details are available, grant-maintained schools in Wales held reserves of £845,458. This represented 6 per cent. of the total annual maintenance grant allocated in that year. According to financial outturn statements prepared by local education authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, during that same period LEA maintained schools were allocated £758,376,907 under authorities' local management of schools schemes. Of this, 6.28 per cent. was carried forward into the next financial year.

  Housing
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of representations received by the Welsh Office on the issue of licensing of housing in multiple occupation; and what percentage of these representations was in favour of a licensing scheme. [14564]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office received 46 replies to my right hon. Friend's letter of 8 December 1994. Eighty per cent. were broadly in favour of licensing. However, there was no clear consensus on the way in which a licensing system should operate and the replies raised a wide range of issues for further consideration.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve residential care for the elderly. [14665]

  Mr. Richards
  We are considering guidance on improving the way in which local authorities apply and enforce the Registered Homes Act 1984. We intend to ensure that there is a sensible level of regulation which safeguards residents by ensuring there are uniform standards throughout Wales.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are now waiting for NHS hospitals and trust appointments; and if he will make a statement. [146681

  Mr. Richards
  At 31 December 1994, there were 119,339 people waiting for a first out-patient appointment at NHS hospitals in Wales. This represents a reduction of 9 per cent. on the number reported for 30 September 1994.

  Learning Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the per capita average cost of resettling people from long stay hospitals into the community, excluding the costs of decommissioning the hospitals themselves. [14689]

  Mr. Richards
  It is for local and health authorities to determine individuals' care and support needs and to provide facilities and services accordingly, consequently the information requested is not available centrally.

  In 1994–95 agreement was reached on the transfer of 50 individuals with a learning disability into the community. Approximately £1.7 million will be made available each year from mental handicap strategy funds to pay for these individuals' care and support. A further £0.53 million each year will come from resources released from long stay mental handicap hospitals. This is in addition to funds from other sources, such as authorities' own resources and social security and housing benefits, where appropriate.

  NHS Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 79, if he will now make it his policy to collect information on those communities in Wales where there are no dentists providing a service on the NHS. [14725]

  Mr. Richards
  Local situations can change quickly and often. Welsh Office officials keep in close touch with the family health services authorities who are best placed to provide the most up-to-date information on local availability of NHS general dental services. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require the submission of formal returns.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the current contracts for the chairman and the chief executive of each Welsh quango end. [14735]

  Mr. Redwood
  The end dates of the current contracts for the chairman and chief executive of each executive
  343
  non-departmental public body in Wales are shown in the following table:

  End date of contract/appointment

  Name of NDPB

  Chairman

  Chief executive

  Agricultural Wages Committee—6

  31.12.95

  1See note

  Arts Council of Wales

  29.03.97

  18.04.98

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  1.04.96

  30.06.95

  Countryside Council for Wales

  4.11.96

  2See note

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  30.09.96

  313.02.97

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  6.07.97

  430.08.95

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  5.05.95

  5.05.97

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  5.05.95

  5.05.97

  Housing for Wales

  30.11.96

  5See note

  Land Authority for Wales

  25.11.95

  6See note

  Local Government Reorganisation Residuary Body

  31.01.00

  7See note

  National Library of Wales

  8See note

  9See note

  National Museum of Wales

  8See note

  31.10.98

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  1031.12.95

  1See note

  Sports Council for Wales

  31.03.96

  31.03.96

  Wales Tourist Board

  30.09.95

  5See note

  Wales Youth Agency

  31.03.95

  31.03.97

  Welsh Development Agency

  30.06.96

  5See note

  Welsh Language Board

  20.12.96

  10.12.96

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  31.03.97

  5See note

  Notes:

  1 No Chief Executives.

  2 After 21 November 1995, the Countryside Council for Wales can terminate the contract by giving 6 months notice in writing. The Chief Executive can resign at any time by giving 13 weeks notice in writing.

  3 Unless extended by mutual agreement.

  4 Initial fixed term contract of 5 years, subject to annual redetermination.

  5 Permanent Post.

  6 Chief Executive's contract expires on retirement.

  7 Chief Executive not yet appointed.

  8 Appointment not made by Secretary of State.

  9 The Librarian is a permanent employee.

  10 The chairman is appointed under Royal Warrant.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of cases of ectoparasitic infestation in sheep for(a) the two years before compulsory dipping was abolished and (b) the two years since compulsory dipping has been abolished. [14569]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 January 1995,Official Report, column 269, for the number of cases of sheep scab during the period in question. Other ectoparasitic infections of sheep have never been notifiable in Wales and consequently information on the number of cases of these diseases is not available.

  Learning Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what mechanism he plans that adults already living in the community but with significant learning difficulties, will in future be enabled to secure living accommodation which will enable them to have an independent life of their own in the community without dependency on ageing parents; and if he will make a statement. [14578]

  Mr. Richards
  It is for local and health authorities to provide care and support for individuals with a learning disability.

  A key objective in guidance on the Welsh mental handicap strategy, which was issued in July last year, is provision of support to help individuals with a learning disability who already live in the community to continue to do so. Furthermore, Welsh Office Circular 7/95 "Mental Handicap Strategy: Planning Alternative Care and Support for Individuals Living Unnecessarily and Inappropriately in Long Stay Mental Handicap Hospitals", stresses the need for authorities to consider the future accommodation and support needs for individuals already living in the community, when drawing up plans for the resettlement, into the community, of individuals living inappropriately and unnecessarily in long-stay hospitals.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of GPs in Wales are fundholders; how many fundholding applications are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [14666]

  Mr. Richards
  There are 117 GP fundholding practices, comprising over 30 per cent. of GPs, in Wales covering one third of the population. A further 29 practices are preparing to become fundholders from 1 April next, at which time general practitioner and population coverage is expected to increase to some 35.5 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively.

  Private Recruitment Agencies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the guidelines issued by his Department to local education authorities with regard to using private recruitment agencies to provide supply teachers to state sector schools; what quality controls exist to ensure that supply teachers provided in this way meet the necessary standards required of teachers in state schools, in terms of professional competence and record of conduct; and what assessment he has made of whether children are vulnerable to being taught by unsuitable teachers as a result of the recruitment system. [14687]

  Mr. Richards
  The responsibility for the appointment and continued employment of teachers is primarily for local education authorities and school governing bodies. The Welsh Office has not issued guidance to them on the use of private recruitment agencies although consideration is being given to the issue of such guidance. LEAs and schools should ensure that all the necessary checks, including those in relation to the qualifications of teachers and their past employment record, have been carried out before an individual is recruited to a teaching post in a maintained school; this applies regardless of the method of recruitment used. It is, amongst other things, a statutory requirement that teachers employed to teach in maintained
  345
  schools in England and Wales have qualified teacher status.

  Employment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many years it would take for Welsh unemployment to return to the 1979 level at the rate of change of the last three years. [14733]

  Mr. Redwood]
  Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell from 123,500 in February 1992 to 107,600 in February 1995, an average fall of 442 claimants a month. It is difficult to say when unemployment would reach the same percentage as 1979 as that depends on whether more women wish to join the workforce or not. There has been a big expansion in numbers joining the workforce in the last 15 years. Over the past year unemployment has been falling at the faster average rate of 1,567 claimants a month.

  New School Construction
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new schools have been completely constructed since 1979 in Wales; and at what cost. [14868]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Construction
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new hospitals have been completely constructed since 1979 in Wales; and at what cost. [14872]

  Mr. Richards
  Eight hospitals have been completely constructed since 1979 at a cost of £82.1 million at the time of construction.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by the Welsh Office; and what was the corresponding figure 12 months ago. [15418]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department employed 2,504 people at the end of February. This is 123 fewer than at the end of February 1994.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospital trusts and health authorities who will release medical records to patients only if they first guarantee not to take legal action against the authorities or trust.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally. In any event such guarantees would be inappropriate where the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 apply.

  Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many suicides there have been in the Welsh farming community in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14257]
  346
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Deaths registered in 1993 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys as being suicides among farmers and farm workers in Wales numbered 11 in total.

  The information on suicides among farmers for the years 1988 to 1992 given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend on 25 March, Official Report, column 454 and for 1992 on 4 May 1994 at column 533 have been found to be incorrect. I shall write to the hon. Member when corrected data have been verified and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Renovation Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the issue of housing renovation grants during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [14264]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office regularly receives letter on renovation grants. Renovation policy and progress are also discussed with each of the 37 district councils on the basis of their housing strategy and operational plans.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the present formula determining the allocation of housing renovation grants; and if he will make a statement. [14265]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The formula is reviewed annually following consultation with the Council of Welsh Districts.

  North East Wales Institute
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the financial management of the North East Wales institute at Wrexham; and if he will make a statement. [15742]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library details of the remuneration and expenses allowable to members of the governing board of the North East Wales institute at Wrexham and the present salaries of the principle and deans. [15741]

  Mr. Richards
  Governors of higher education institutions do not receive remuneration. They are entitled to receive the repayment of expenses incurred in connection with their duties as governors. Beginning with the academic year ending on 31 July 1995 all higher education institutions will be required to publish emoluments of the principal and remuneration of higher paid staff in their annual accounts.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Touche Ross report commissioned by the Welsh Higher Education Funding Council into the finances of the North East Wales institute at Wrexham. [15739]

  Mr. Richards
  No. The report was commissioned by the High Education Funding Council for Wales. It deals with the financial and management systems at the institute which is an independent corporation. The report is being treated as confidential to the council and the institute.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy in respect of civil servants whose name, position and telephone numbers are not publicly available answering queries from members of the public and what is the external distribution of his Department's internal telephone numbers. [18500]

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office staff answering queries from the public are normally expected to give their names, in line with the principles of the citizens charter. Their office telephone numbers are available from the Welsh Office exchange. The Welsh Office internal telephone directory is sent on request to central Government bodies, non-departmental public bodies and the National Audit Office.

  NNR Management
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what levels of funding were allocated to the Countryside Council for Wales for the management of its national nature reserves in Wales in 1994–95; and what has been allocated for 1995–96;

  (2) what levels of funding were allocated by the Countryside Council for Wales for the management of its national nature reserves in Wales in 1994–95; and what has been allocated for 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: The amounts allocated by the Countryside Council for Wales are as follows:

  1994–95: £430,000

  1995–96: £300,000

  I have asked the CCW to look at the ways of reducing its overhead and reconsider its programme expenditure.

HEALTH

  Disability
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recommendations in the report of the Disablement Income Group entitled "An Opportunity Lost". [15058]

  Mr. Bowis
  The report makes seven recommendations, most of which are aimed at local authorities. The recommendation to central Government that former independent living fund resources within the special transitional grant should be ringfenced has been considered. It would, however, restrict their flexibility in using their resources. Local authorities are, of course, free to ring fence their own funds. We do not, however, consider that the important tool of ring fencing should be used at central Government level in this instance.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines apply in respect of the eviction from nursing homes of elderly people whose funds are exhausted. [14912]

  (2) what powers are available to her to prevent poor elderly citizens from being evicted from homes for the elderly. [14913]
  348
  Mr. Bowis
  Since April 1993, local authorities have had a responsibility to arrange accommodation in residential care and nursing homes for elderly people who for whatever reason are assessed as needing such care but are unable to meet the cost.

  Elderly people who entered independent sector homes before April 1993 may have preserved rights to the higher rates of income support. If such people have been evicted or are threatened with eviction from a residential care home, local authorities have a responsibility to make alternative arrangements. In the case of elderly people in nursing homes who are in this position, the national health service has a responsibility to assess their health needs and to offer appropriate services within the resources available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment she has made of the implications of the Department of Environment's proposals for the removal of the requirement for local authorities to retain directly provided residential accommodation in respect of a local authority's duties under(a) the National Assistance Act 1948, other than part III, (b) the Registered Homes Act 1984 and (c) the NHS and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement. [14708]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities already and increasingly discharge their statutory duties to provide residential care through contracts with independent sector providers. Under the Government's proposals, if local authorities thought they were unable to contract for particular services from the independent sector, they could continue to provide them directly.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority care homes provided under the National Assistance Act 1948 have offered(a) respite care, (b) day care and (c) assessment facilities for each year since 1979. [14709]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table.

  Local authority homes for all client groups, England

  As at 31 March

  Number of homes with short-stay admissions

  Number of homes with day care places available

  1987

  2,849

  1,529

  1988

  2,947

  1,765

  1989

  2,987

  1,848

  1990

  2,957

  1,777

  1991

  2,945

  1,755

  1992

  2,659

  1,581

  1993

  2,388

  1,422

  1994

  2,317

  1,336

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to amend the rules governing personal contributions to the cost of long-term residential care. [15678]

  Mr. Bowis
  None but they are kept under regular review.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) capital and (b) revenue has been spent on accommodation provided by local authorities under part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 in each year since 1979. [14774]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The information available centrally relates to capital and

  349
  revenue expenditure on residential accommodation for adults and is shown in the table for the years for which figures are available.

  Local authority expenditure on residential accommodation for adults, England

  Financial year

  Capital £ million1

  Revenue (gross) £ million2

  1978–79

  —

  420

  1986–87

  —

  975

  1987–88

  —

  1,074

  1988–89

  127

  1,179

  1989–90

  148

  1,283

  1990–91

  119

  1,413

  1991–92

  121

  1,483

  1992–93

  130

  1,504

  1 Information is not available prior to 1988–89.

  2 Information is not available for the years 1979–80 to 1985–86.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many renal patients currently on FP10 prescriptions will be transferred to the district health authority contract system as of 1 April. [15375]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what her Department estimates the change in the number of renal patients in England and Wales will be from 1994–95 to 1995–96. [15374]

  (2) how many new renal patients per million of population she expects to undergo treatment in the National Health Service in the coming year. [15376]

  Mr. Sackville
  Both the total number of renal patients and the number of new renal patients per million population are expected to increase. Local purchasers and providers should take this into account in their planning. Specific information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what efforts her Department has made to ensure that general practitioners are aware of the forthcoming changes to the funding arrangements for the treatment of kidney patients. [15384]

  Mr. Malone
  All general practitioners and pharmacists have received a family practitioner notice giving guidance and instructions on the changes to the system for providing high tech health care for patients at home. More detailed instructions in the form of an executive letter, EL(95)5 copies of which are available in the Library, have been sent to regional, district and family health services authority General Managers, national health service trust chief executives and general practitioner fundholders. Both of these set out clearly what is expected of GPs in implementing these changes.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects her Department to publish the renal review; and what factors led to the delay in publication. [15382]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are currently considering the practical implications of the report on the review of renal services. We intend to publish purchasing guidance based on the report once those implications are clear.
  350
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts she is making to ensure that the new contracts between district health authorities and renal units are in place before 1 April. [15385]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities have been asked to ensure that new arrangements are in place by 1 April where continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis is currently being funded through general practitioner prescribing. This affects about half of CAPD patients. District health authorities have been asked to ensure as a priority that there is a continuity of care for these patients. In order to facilitate this they only have been authorised, if necessary, to contract with the supplier currently providing the services for 1995–96.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been made by her Department as to the effect of the new funding arrangements for renal units on the level of care provided for kidney patients at the Royal Victoria infirmary and the Freeman hospital in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. [15377]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Newcastle and north Tyneside health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. S. Murray, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many renal units there are in England and Wales; and how many patients they treat(a) by region and (b) in total. [15381]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are held for England and Wales, 53 adult renal units in England, and eight in Wales treated a total of 18,768 patients. Regional details are as follows:

  Regions

  Number

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,944

  Trent

  1,814

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,910

  North Thames

  3,534

  South Thames

  1,927

  South and West

  2,239

  West Midlands

  1,350

  North West

  2,849

  Wales

  1,201

  Total

  18,768

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of her Department regarding rationing renal treatment and peritoneal dialysis on the basis of age. [15379]

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service treatment should be available to all on the basis of clinical need. It is for the clinician concerned to determine the appropriate treatment, which should not be denied on the ground of age alone, although age will be one of the factors which the clinician will take into account.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which groups were consulted by her Department during its renal review. [15383]

  Mr. Sackville
  All providers of renal services in England, all regional and district health authorities and a number of professional and patient interest groups were consulted on the renal review.

  Casualty Units, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish and set out the dates, periods and reasons when, in 1995 to date, at casualty units in the area of the former North East Thames regional health authority within Greater London, those arriving either before or after diagnosis and treatment were accommodated on trolleys from emergency ambulances, and the maximum number so used on any such occasion. [15820]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Local health authorities are responsible for monitoring the performance of hospitals providing services for their residents.

  Patients at Home (Care Packages)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she will take to monitor the introduction of EL(95)5. [15128]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities have been asked to introduce changes in the way some packages of care are provided in the national health service from 1 April 1995. They have been further asked to develop strategies for providing these treatments from April 1996. Their progress in implementing these requirements will be monitored by the NHS Executive in the usual way.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average percentage bed occupancy rate for each intensive care therapy unit in England during 1994 and for each of the last 10 years. [15360]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care units in England have an intensive care consultant available 24 hours a day; and what percentage of all intensive care units that represents. [15359]

  Mr. Sackville
  Intensive care does not have specialty status and does not, therefore, have its own dedicated consultants. Patients in intensive care are attended by consultants in various specialties.

  Deprivation and Ill Health
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment her Department is making as to any link between poor housing and ill health; [15390]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made as to regional and local inequalities in health; and what action is being taken to tackle inequalities; [15386]

  (3) what assessment her Department is making as to any link between low incomes, poor diet and ill health; [15392]

  (4) what assessment is being made by her Department as to any link between income inequality, relative deprivation and ill health; [15393]

  (5) what assessment her Department is making as to any link between unemployment, stress and ill health; [13389]

  (6) what assessment is being made by her Department as to any link between low income and ill health. [15391]
  352
  Mr. Sackville
  The White Paper,"The Health of the Nation", Cm 1986, acknowledged that good housing is important to good health and that in England, as in all other westernised countries, there are variations in health status between different socio-economic groups within the population. A sub-group of the Chief Medical Officer's health of the nation working group is currently looking at how the Department and the national health service can make best use of existing information in tackling ethnic, geographical, socio-economic and gender variations in health status in the current health of the nation key areas. The sub-group will also be advising on areas in which new epidemiological and research information is needed.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects that beta-interferon will be prescribable on the NHS for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. [15378]

  Mr. Malone
  No beta-interferon drug for multiple sclerosis has been licensed for use in the United Kingdom. A licence application for such a drug is currently being assessed by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency.

  AIDS
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much money has been ring-fenced for HIV/AIDS prevention in 1995; and what proportion of this figure has been allocated to the Health Education Authority for this specific area of work. [15315]

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of £49.612 million has been earmarked for HIV/AIDS prevention in the national health service in 1995–96. This includes funding to safeguard the blood supply, train health care workers for infection control and HIV testing as well as monies for local prevention/public education work. The Health Education Authority budget, available for national public education, is separate from this budget. The amount of money to be provided for the HEA's work on HIV/AIDS in 1995–96 has yet to be determined.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what were the costs of operating Solihull hospital for 1994–95; what estimates she has made for 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [15132]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally, however, I understand from West Midlands regional health authority that the 1994–95 budgeted costs were £32.9 million and that for 1995–96 proposed costs of £39.5 million have been identified. It is estimated that these costs will lead to an £850,000 deficit in 1994–95 rising to a potential deficit of £7.8 million the following year. A project team has been set up by West Midlands regional health authority, including representatives from Solihull hospital and Birmingham Heartlands national health service trust, to explore ways of resolving this situation. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of the authority, for further details.

  Road Traffic Act (Emergency Treatment Fee)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations she has received about section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and if she will
  353
  consider bringing forward proposals to annul that section of the Act. [15371]

  Mr. Sackville
  During 1994 the Department received a number of letters from hon. Members and the public expressing concern about the emergency treatment fee, collected under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We have no plans to change the Act.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money fundholders currently have in savings, by region; and how much this figure was for each of the last three years. [15365]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 November 1994 at cols 321–22 and on 14 March at col 545.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each family health service authority what percentage of the costs for(a) computer hardware, (b) computer software and (c) computer maintenance (i) non-funding and (ii) fundholding GPs are presently allowed to claim back. [15363]

  Mr. Malone
  Under the terms of the cost-plus contract for general practitioners, the profession is fully reimbursed all expenses incurred in the delivery of general medical services.

  All GPs, non-fundholders and fundholders alike, are able to claim direct reimbursement of normally up to 50 per cent. for practice computer systems to support general medical service activity.

  In addition, GP fundholders are required to have systems to manage their budgets, for which they are able to claim up to 100 per cent. of specialist computer software and related maintenance costs and 75 per cent. of computer hardware and associated maintenance costs.

  The balance of expenditure on computer hardware, software and maintenance will continue to be met indirectly through the expenses element in the gross fees and allowances.

  Information on the percentage costs reimbursed by individual family health services authorities is not available centrally.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting time in each regional health authority area are in England for the delivery to a patient of a standard wheelchair. [15328]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health authorities are responsible for setting and monitoring the standard of services locally for people with physical disabilities, including the wheelchair services.

  NHS Medical Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for each of the last 10 years, how many(a) house officers, (b) senior house officers, (c) registrars, (d) senior registrars and (e) consultants were employed in each of the regional health authorities and for the NHS as a whole. [15367]

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

  Anorexia Nervosa
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide an estimate of the annual cost to the NHS of the treatment of anorexia nervosa. [15433]

  Mr Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Runwell Secure Hospital Unit
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of the Runwell secure hospital unit; what accommodation was available there and where its replacement beds are to be located; and what is the overall short and long-term demand for such accommodation arising from the health authorities for the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Barking and Havering. [15819]

  Mr. Bowis
  Runwell medium secure unit is run by the Southend Community Care Services national health service trust. In October 1994 the trust expanded the number of beds in the secure unit from 14 to 28. The trust's plans to expand medium secure provision further on the Runwell hospital site and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust about these plans.

  South and West RHA Headquarters
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost of acquiring and equipping the premises for the South and West regional health authority at the Parkway business park, Bristol. [16063]

  (2) what is the total cost of re-locating staff from Bristol and Winchester to the new South and West regional health authority headquarters at the Parkway business park, Bristol. [16064]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the regional health authority. The hon. member may wish to contact Ms Rennie Fritchie, chairman of the South and West regional health authority, for details.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of deaths of(a) men and (b) women in England, Wales and Scotland for which mesothelioma is mentioned on the death certificate for each year since 1968. [15215]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table:

  Deaths in Great Britain where Mesothelioma was specifically mentioned on the death certificate, 1968–1991.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1968

  115

  39

  154

  1969

  123

  36

  159

  1970

  145

  49

  194

  1971

  141

  40

  181

  1972

  169

  43

  212

  1973

  182

  42

  224

  1974

  185

  58

  243

  1975

  218

  52

  270

  1976

  256

  56

  312

  1977

  273

  60

  333

  1978

  328

  63

  391

  1979

  340

  93

  433

  1980

  355

  102

  457

  1981

  395

  73

  468

  1982

  411

  91

  502

  355

  Deaths in Great Britain where Mesothelioma was specifically mentioned on the death certificate, 1968–1991.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1983

  474

  95

  569

  1984

  534

  84

  618

  1985

  531

  83

  614

  1986

  599

  101

  700

  1987

  702

  106

  808

  1988

  751

  111

  862

  1989

  767

  132

  899

  1990

  763

  117

  880

  19911

  861

  148

  1,009

  1 Provisional.

  Surgery (Qualifications of Staff)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the circumstances in which a person with no formal medical qualifications was asked to assist in a hip replacement operation at Newham general hospital; who was the employee; and what was his or her contract of employment. [15837]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Newham Healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mrs. Rosemary Walters, for details.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grades of personnel, other than qualified medical practitioners and nurses are, under health service regulations, permitted to participate in surgical operations; and what records are kept of such occasions. [15836]

  Mr. Sackville
  The law does not specify who may participate in an operation. Theatre nurses, operating department assistants and operating department orderlies working under the direct supervision of medical staff may assist in some operations where needed, within the limits of their competence.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available in the Library copies of the written evidence submitted to, and the transcripts of oral evidence taken by, the Warnock committee which produced the report on human fertilisation and embryology; and if that evidence and those transcripts have ever been published. [15838]

  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of written evidence to the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology and responses to the Warnock report from organisations were placed in the Library in 1985, where the organisation consented. Transcripts of oral evidence to the committee were not made. Organisations who gave oral and written evidence to the committee are listed in the appendix to the Warnock report. Some of them are believed to have published their own evidence.

  Community Care Forum
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 1 February,Official Report, column 1036, if she will list the schedule
  356
  of dates for the meetings of the Community Care Forum, its terms of reference, and who is to be appointed to the chair. [15774]

  Mr. Bowis
  The first such meeting will be held on 3 April and chaired by an official from this Department.

  Orsett Hospital
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assurances about maintenance or planned improvements of service delivery were given to her predecessor when authority was sought to close the accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital in Thurrock; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: The then Basildon and Thurrock health authority envisaged a continuing major role for Orsett hospital in the provision of health care in the district.

EDUCATION

  Hearing Impaired Children
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many vacancies exist for teachers of the deaf; [15456]

  (2) how many teachers of the deaf have qualified in each of the last three years. [15457]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The results of a DFE survey covering the 1993–94 financial year indicate that in the 87 local education authorities that completed the survey, 68 teachers completed their training to gain a mandatory qualification in the teaching of hearing impaired children.

  The same survey indicated that there were 24.2 vacancies for teachers of hearing impaired children in the 87 LEAs concerned.

  Figures are not available for earlier years, but a similar survey is currently being undertaken covering the 199495 financial year.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many further education colleges in the north-west have not met their targets for(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; [15674]

  (2) which colleges of further education in the north-west have made the biggest claims for demand lead element in 1994–95; and what vocational training contributed most to these demand lead element bids; [15676]

  (3) what are the consequences for colleges that have been awarded grants but not achieved their targets; in which cases reimbursement of public funds will be sought; and how the reimbursement will be operated. [15675]

  Mr. Boswell
  These are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I have written to the FEFC's chief executive, Sir William Stubbs, and asked him to respond to the hon. Member's questions directly by letter.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of the Dearing review of the national curriculum. [15593]
  357
  Mr. Forth
  The estimated total cost of the Dearing review of the national curriculum is £4.7 million, comprising:

  i. £755,000 for the interim and final Dearing reports on the national curriculum;

  ii. £528,000 for work on slimming down the curriculum by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its advisory groups, excluding SCAA internal staff costs;

  iii. £2 million for the consultation on the revised curriculum proposals, including the cost of publishing and distributing the consultation documents and a report on the outcome of consultation;

  iv. £1.4 million for publication and distribution of the final subject documents in January 1995, excluding staff costs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of the work on the national curriculum before the Dearing review. [15592]

  Mr. Forth
  Central Government expenditure on the national curriculum between 1988 and 1993 was an estimated £469 million. Some £350 million of this was in the form of grants for education support and training to support expenditure by local education authorities and schools mainly on books, equipment and training. The £469 million also includes the full grants to the former National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and thus includes some expenditure on the curriculum and assessment which was not directly concerned with the national curriculum.

  Secondary Education Advisory Council
  Mr. Don Foser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of(a) setting up and (b) winding up the Secondary Education Advisory Council and the National Curriculum Council. [15595]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Whittingham Communities Primary School
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she will be in a position to give a full answer to the letter from the hon. Member for Walthamstow of 27 February, regarding Whittingham school: and when the council of the London borough of Waltham Forest will be giving a decision on the rebuilding of Whittingham school. [15850]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My letter of 13 March to the hon. Member explained the position on the proposals to establish the Whittingham community primary school. I expect a decision to be made shortly and shall advise the hon. Member of the outcome.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of(a) an average primary school Office for Standards in Education and (b) an average secondary school Ofsted inspection for the most recent year for which figures are available. [15594]

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of setting up the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The sum of £1.044 million was spent on the FAS headquarters in York, initial staff-related costs, and other miscellaneous items prior to the agency's formal establishment on 1 April 1994.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps her Department has taken over the last year to inform local education authorities and grant-maintained schools of the dangers of school buildings containing asbestos for individuals carrying out repair, refurbishment and building maintenance work; [15147]

  (2) what consideration her Department has given to the sending of a guidance note to head teachers informing them of the dangers of asbestos for individuals carrying out repair, refurbishment and building maintenance work on school buildings; and if she will make a statement. [15149]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  General information and advice about asbestos is set out in the Department of the Environment's booklet "Asbestos Materials in Buildings", which was revised most recently in 1991. The Department for Education will shortly be issuing, as part of a document dealing with building matters generally, additional guidance about asbestos.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration her Department has given to the risk of voluntary staff facing exposure to asbestos dust when carrying out repair, refurbishment and building maintenance work on school buildings. [15148]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All work with asbestos is regulated by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. These regulations impose duties on employers, including local education authorities and schools, to protect their employees from exposure to asbestos, but also extend this duty to include the protection of anyone else who may be affected by the work. Schools can seek professional advice about asbestos either from their local education authority or other sources. They should certainly do so if they believe that asbestos poses any threat to staff or pupils. Detailed guidance is available in the Department of the Environment booklet "Asbestos Materials in Buildings".

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration her Department has given to encouraging local education authorities to survey school buildings so as to create detailed registers of school buildings that contain asbestos; and if she will make a statement. [15150]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responsibility for the condition of school buildings and the health and safety of pupils and staff lies with local education authorities and school governors. Although the Department would suggest that in all cases the presence of asbestos in school buildings should be recorded and its condition monitored, how local education authorities and schools exercise their responsibilities for health and safety must be for them to decide.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what financial provision has been made by central Government for increases in teachers' pay in 1996 both in cash terms and in percentage terms. [15267]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisional figure for the aggregate total standard spending on all services in 1996–97 is £44,073 million. Individual service shares will be decided in next year's settlement.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the capital allocation to each grant-maintained schools in Birmingham since their establishment; and what information she has on the annual capital expenditure of each school. [15443]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education with which bodies she consulted prior to 360
  the announcement of the standard spending assessment for education. [15044]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government consulted the local authority associations through the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and the working groups which support it. In addition, my right hon. Friend and other Ministers and I regularly meet representatives of local education authorities and other bodies; discussions cover a range of issues including education funding.

  Green Fold School
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the registered capacity of Green Fold school in Bolton, Lancashire when it was first opened in 1981; what has been the registered capacity for each year since then; and what is the latest projection. [144434]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Our records show that in 1981 Green Fold special school had approval for 80 "educationally sub-normal (severe)" boys and girls aged three to 18. The capacity remained the same until 1988, when the then Secretary of State gave approval for the school for 60 boys and girls with severe learning difficulties aged three to 11. The capacity has remained at this level for each year since then. Any change to this figure would require Bolton local education authority to submit proposals to the Secretary of State under section 183 of the Education Act 1993.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Rathcavan Lord Rathcavan —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Shipbuilding: UK Competitiveness
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to support the United Kingdom merchant shipbuilding industry so that it can compete more effectively in world markets.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government's policy is to create an economic climate which will offer companies in all sectors the opportunity to develop and compete in the markets of the world.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather sad and unsatisfactory reply. Is he aware that the average age of the world merchant fleet is now approaching 20 years, which means that there are many ships over 30 and 40 years of age which need to be replaced? That provides great opportunities which are being taken by other European countries. Germany has a forward order book of some 1.7 million gross tonnes; Denmark and Finland, 2.2 million gross tonnes; and the UK, under half a million gross tonnes —1 per cent. of the world market. Is the Minister aware also that no British yard felt able to tender for the new P&O liner "Oriana", which was built in Germany? Are the Government really satisfied with that position? Should not more be done—to take the words of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade—to help the British merchant shipbuilding industry to win more orders?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend thinks that I gave him a sad and unsatisfactory reply. The Government wish to create a climate in which everyone can compete. Indeed, they are doing that. It is true that all shipbuilding industries have suffered from a depressed market but United Kingdom shipyards are now cost-competitive with other European Union yards. My noble friend asks why we cannot give more help. I can only assume that he wants to know why we cannot provide a subsidy or place orders to keep the shipyards going. You cannot place orders with companies on that scale without affecting adversely other companies. It is for individual companies to decide for which ships they will tender.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, because of the ageing fleet, will the Government consider a scrap and build policy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the fleet is ageing, there are obviously opportunities but those opportunities have to be competed for with the rest of the world.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend not find it very depressing that the very large P&O liner "Oriana", referred to by my noble friend, should have been constructed in Germany whereas previously those large liners were built here?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree. It would have been very good if the "Oriana" had been built in the UK but if no company tendered for it, that was not possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl have any evidence to show that the German shipyards which built the "Oriana" received subsidies, if not from national sources, then from all kinds of local sources? Has he investigated that? Has he any evidence of it? If so, will a complaint be made? If not, perhaps British shipyards can be helped in the same way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not aware of any unfair subsidies being given to German shipbuilders. They probably have the same kind of subsidy which operates in this country through the shipbuilding intervention fund. That enables 9 per cent. of the contract costs for large commercial ships to be provided in the United Kingdom by the Department of Trade and Industry. As with all other European Union countries, German shipbuilders can have access to the same kind of funds if their government wish to provide them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend not think it time that the Government overcame their rather detached attitude to the problem and examined carefully the practices which exist in other countries to encourage shipbuilding? Perhaps they might remind themselves from time to time that we remain an island.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that remarkable geographical interpretation is one I share. The Government are not detached in their attitude towards what they wish to do to help either business or, in particular, shipbuilders. There has been major overcapacity in shipbuilding throughout the world. Japan and Korea succeed in building far less expensive ships than we do. We must try to ensure that the climate in which our shipbuilders operate is as competitive as possible. We have achieved that.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question sadly comes 10 years too late because during that time the British flagged merchant fleet has declined from 1,500 vessels to 250 vessels? Does he agree that that decline is one cause of our reduced capacity for building merchant ships? Would not our shipbuilding industry be helped if some encouragement were given to increasing the size of the flagged fleet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am unable to confirm or deny the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has

1313
produced. I have no reason to believe that they are not correct. But there has been a great diminution in shipbuilding and maritime activity over the past 10 years or so. It may be that there will be opportunities to build ships in the future. However, people have been tending to use aircraft rather than ships and the shipbuilding industry as a whole has suffered.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the difficulties with the industry is the lack of harmonisation in capital allowances for corporation tax purposes? Would it not be a good idea to have harmonisation, especially as regards the European Community, so that we have a level playing field with the indirect subsidy given to foreign shipbuilders through taxation? Should we not perhaps follow their example?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly take note of the suggestion made by my noble friend. However, from 1st January 1996, the OECD agreement states that all shipbuilding subsidies will be abolished. That places the commercial and the defence industries on equal footings, both in this country and in others.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we have been listening to talk of creating the correct climate for at least 15 years? Does he not think that the explanation is now wearing a little thin? Will he consider—or advise his colleagues to consider—adopting a much more constructive and nationally oriented policy in relation to merchant shipping?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the fact that the climate is being created has not worn thin: that is why 40 per cent. of all the investment by Japan in the European Union comes to this country. Moreover, 43 per cent. of all the investment which the United States makes comes to this country. There is one very good reason for that; this country is competitive.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why Scandinavian and German yards are so much more successful than ours if the subsidy is the same.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot explain why; indeed, I would rather question whether that is in fact the case. It is certainly true that labour costs in shipbuilding yards in the United Kingdom are lower than they are in Germany.

Iraq: Kuwaiti Detainees
3.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to assist the International Committee of the Red Cross in its efforts to secure the return from Iraq of Kuwaitis, including women and children, seized by Iraq during its occupation of Kuwait.
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we
1314
raise this issue at the United Nations at every suitable opportunity—most recently on 13th March. We have made clear to the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister that the lack of progress is unacceptable. We will continue to play a role in the Tripartite Commission and its technical sub-committee set up last December to speed up the review of ICRC case files on the detainees.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that the specialist committee in the Kuwait Assembly is very appreciative of the endeavours of the International Red Cross and especially of the British Parliament—that is, both Houses and all parties? The members of the committee know that that assistance will continue. However, pressure must be maintained so that the loved ones of those people who were taken away in such a brutal manner can be returned to their homes and to their families.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of that appreciation. However, it is always nice to receive from the noble Lord the thanks of the specialist committee in Kuwait. While the ICRC is the key organisation for dealing with detainees, we are watching most carefully how the committee is getting on. I shall be talking with the committee tomorrow in Geneva. I am glad to say that there are some signs, for example, by their attendance at the Tripartite Commission and initial responses on 127 files, that Iraq is perhaps beginning to co-operate. Let us hope that that process continues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome everything that has being done on behalf of the Kuwaiti detainees. Will the Minister consider referring to the ICRC the question of 1 million Iraqis, allegedly of Persian ancestry, who were expelled to Iran between 1980–90 and of the representatives of those families who, according to the UN rapporteur, Max van der Stoel, have been detained ever since as hostages in southern Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall certainly look into what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government continue to support the ICRC, not only in the very important work that it is carrying out in Iraq and Kuwait, but also in such so-called "forgotten areas" of the world, such as Afghanistan and Liberia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, that assurance. I shall discuss those very matters tomorrow.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have a question which is peripheral to the one on the Order Paper but, nevertheless, relevant to it. Can the Minister throw any further light on newspaper reports which appeared today which seem to show that there has been a coup attempt in Iraq, and that the son of Saddam Hussein has been seriously wounded and is now in hospital in Amman, Jordan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can give no confirmation or denial about those reports at this time. But, needless to say, I am as interested as the noble Lord in the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in Kuwait that the pressure exerted by the International Red Cross and all supporting governments and Parliaments, including our own, is beginning to have an effect? Surely that pressure must be maintained. Ultimately, I feel sure that the free world will show that it cannot be treated in such a way by an evil dictator.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as Iraq has attended the last two meetings of the Tripartite Commission—something I believe that the UN special rapporteur on Iraq has very much welcomed as a new development—can the Minister tell the House whether Iraq was asked to give an explanation at those meetings about the continued imprisonment of 600 or more Kuwaitis? Further, are there any plans to put pressure on the Iraqis in the context of the commission meetings?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact answer; but I hardly think that such meetings would have taken place without those matters being raised. They are part of the work of the Tripartite Commission. Certainly, one of the things that has happened is that the Tripartite Commission has been successful in cutting away some of the procedural undergrowth. That is how the new technical sub-committee has been able to speed up its work. It means that the committee will be able to take account of things that previously it could not.

Banking and Charitable Institutions
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Chandos Viscount Chandos asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the collapse of Barings, they will introduce legislation to prohibit charities from owning banking institutions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government share the wide regret at the financial difficulties of Barings and will study any views from the inquiry which has been commissioned by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Charity trustees are already under important duties of care in relation to the safe custody of their charities' property. The Government are not persuaded that new legislation to prohibit a charity from owning a bank would be appropriate.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, does she agree that day-to-day banking supervision can and should only be the protection of last resort, with proper accountability
1316
to shareholders being the primary discipline? Should not the Bank of England have recognised that the interrelationship between the trustees of the Barings Foundation and the past and present directors of the Barings group blunted that discipline and at the same time allowed a disproportionate share of profits to be paid to senior employees?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be quite inappropriate for me to speculate on any of the noble Viscount's points. As he knows, a review of all such matters is taking place at present. It is absolutely certain that the trustees do have a duty of care in such matters. As regards the underlying premise of the Question, Barings started off as a bank and set up a foundation over 200 years after its establishment as a bank. The idea of putting legislation in place which would prevent a bank from setting up a charitable foundation would simply not be sensible.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the matter that needs to be addressed is whether it is desirable for a bank to be owned by any single shareholder or group of shareholders who may not be able to increase the capital of the bank in a manner which is commensurate with the risks that the bank enters into? In the case of Barings, the risk was probably entered into involuntarily.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to say how Barings entered into that risk. All I know is that the trustees of the charitable foundation acted properly and were wholly unaware of the tragedy that was about to befall them. However, the relationship as regards the charitable foundation, the bank, the proper management of the bank—which I believe is what is at stake—and the proper relationships and line management that operate at any given time is really what is at issue, I hope that that will be looked at during the course of the investigations.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am the current chairman of the council of the Baring Foundation, which has indeed been grievously wounded by the collapse of Barings. I was also chairman of Barings plc up until 1989 and a non-executive director of Barings until last year. Do the Government agree that to lead a Question on shareholder responsibilities with an apparent assertion that the trustees of a charity are less capable than others of keeping pressure on management to do what they should do—to produce income by managing the asset well—and, furthermore, to use the Baring Foundation as an example, when several of us on the council have had, and have, intimate knowledge of Barings business and management, is less than convincing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first of all, I note the noble Lord's involvement in these matters. I think the whole House will share the regret that this generous charitable foundation should have fallen so tragically. There is a criticism of the Baring trustees implicit in this Question. I would like to think that we could distance ourselves from that and say that the trustees of any charity have a duty to maximise income, to invest

1317
responsibly and to carry out their duties responsibly. It is those duties of care which would apply to any trustees of any charity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without in any way wishing to comment further on the efficacy or otherwise of the actions of the trustees of the Baring Foundation, does not the Minister agree that, as regards the public, the real scandal in recent weeks has been that the senior management of Barings have paid themselves £105 million in bonuses for profits in 1994 which are not there, whereas the Baring Foundation has had to notify its recipient charities that the money is not available for them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall make no comment on the point that was made by the noble Lord. I do not wish to speculate on any outcome of any inquiry about the behaviour of Barings in this matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that nothing that has been said so far has removed the need for the Question that was originally raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I remind the House of the Question, which invites the Government to consider the possibility of introducing legislation,
"to prohibit charities from owning banking institutions".
As it relates to Barings, I am simply saying that Barings was a bank for 200 years before it set up a charitable foundation. It has been extremely generous to the charitable sector. We all regret the downfall of Barings Bank, but that is not an argument for putting in place legislation to prevent any bank from setting up a charitable foundation.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the unfortunate sequence of events that overtook Barings Bank, the Baring Foundation has over the years played a first-class role in supporting many charities and much valuable work? Perhaps one of the other oblique lessons of this is that other merchant banks might be similarly generous in a charitable sense.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Lord on that. However, I believe that there are two lessons which we can learn while we await the outcome of any review, and one is for charities not to become over-dependent on one source of income. That is important. The other lesson concerns diversification. The charitable foundation had begun to diversify, and it is because of that decision to diversify that £50 million has been saved, is invested and will be available to honour existing commitments. I must put on record that the new company which has taken over Barings has made an ex gratia payment to the Baring Foundation of £10 million, which will also help enormously.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure the whole House must have heard with great interest the comments of someone so intimately concerned with Barings Bank. But is it not the case that in spite of the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993 there is still a real danger that trustees
1318
of charities may not be aggressive enough in their financial expertise and knowledge to own or in any way control the ownership of financial institutions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether I agree with the word "aggressive". Certainly it is responsibility that we want in managing the aims and objectives of the charity, taking proper advice on investment policy, noting the whole issue of not becoming over-dependent and watching out for the proper relationship between a foundation and an institution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to say that I was puzzled by what the Minister said about charities not relying on a single source of funds. What does she suggest, for example, that the Rowntree Trust or the Gulbenkian Foundation should do?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I was saying was that Barings appeared safe but nonetheless, when it went down, many charitable organisations that were so dependent on that one source of income were badly let down. If it is possible to diversify sources of income, I believe that should be considered.

Wage Levels
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps, if any, they intend to take following the recent report that over 1 million people are earning less than £2.50 per hour; and whether they will reconsider their policies towards the wages councils and a national minimum wage.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, workers at all levels have enjoyed an increase in real earnings since 1979. This has resulted from the Government's continuing policy of sound economic management. The country's improved competitiveness and productivity have brought about this welcome increase in earnings.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I find that Answer very unsatisfactory. I drew the figures in my Question from the labour force survey which indicates a widening gap in the period to which the Minister refers in the wages of the lowest paid and the highest paid. Is he aware that we as taxpayers are now having to pay £2.44 billion in benefit to top up low pay and that this is really a subsidy to low paying employers? Would it not be better if there were an obligation upon employers to pay a living wage and so relieve the rest of us from having to pay this subsidy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, wages can only amount to what it is possible for an employer to pay in any particular circumstance. As the work that the Government have done on the earlier Trades Union Congress proposal for introducing a minimum wage has shown, if that were introduced it would be likely to lead to about ¾ of a million extra people unemployed. It

1319
would also lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure. That does not seem to me a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if wages councils were re-introduced and we had a minimum wage, unemployment would increase, as it would if the social chapter were accepted by the Government? Does my noble friend also agree that, as regards the minimum wage, there is a certain reluctance on the part of the official Opposition to fix a rate?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is interesting to reflect on what Mr. Tony Blair said in 1991 in a letter to the Independent. He wrote:
"I have not accepted that minimum wages will cost jobs. I have simply accepted that the econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact".
That seems to sum up the muddled thinking.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the Minister a little naive to say that employers will only pay what they can for labour? Is he not aware that a great many employers will only pay what they have to?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is right. You can only pay what you can afford, which is determined by what you have.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware what sort of wages are referred to in the report? Are they casual wages by the hour? Are they wages by the day? Are they weekly wages? What wages are they?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the report to which I understand the Question refers was produced by the Labour Party. Therefore, it is a matter for the Benches opposite to elaborate. However, I understand that they are hourly wages.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, as my noble friend made clear, the figures mentioned in her Question were produced by Her Majesty's Government, not by the Labour Party. Would the Minister like to withdraw his statement in answer to my noble friend that wages have increased at all levels? Is he not aware that the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth demonstrated that for people in employment incomes have fallen for the lowest 10 per cent. and have remained stagnant for the next 10 per cent. of the labour force? Will he withdraw that false statement?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is not my understanding.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I served for many years on a wages council. Is the Minister aware that when this Government took the foolish step of abolishing wages councils they irritated many organisations on the employers' side? Here was a system whereby trade unions and employers came together and worked out some of their difficulties. Was it because they worked so admirably that the Tories got rid of them?
Lord Inglewood: No, my Lords, I do not accept that there is widespread support for wages councils. We
1320
abolished the wages councils in order to introduce flexibility into the labour market and thereby increase the potential for creating jobs and wealth for the country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the Rowntree Report the Minister said that that was not his understanding of the report. Can he say what is his understanding of the report?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Rowntree Report is an interesting document which contributes to the debate in the country in general as well as in this House. It tries to focus on the problems of poverty in the country as it perceives them. However, in our view the report does not properly take into account many aspects such as the provision of education and healthcare which have meant that people's standard of living has increased.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government accept that wage levels of the order we are discussing are below the poverty level and that the Government themselves, through income support and family credit, subsidise those excessively low wages? Can he explain why, when a company is making enormous profits, the Government are prepared to use taxpayers' money to subsidise that employer who is paying wages below subsistence level?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in this context it is important to differentiate clearly between what people earn for doing a job and what may be provided by the welfare system so that the households of which they are part can have an adequate standard of living. Wages are determined by the marketplace. The level of income which is appropriate for households varies according to a variety of different criteria such as the number of people in the household. Therefore the two are calculated in a different manner.

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I take it that my noble friend the Minister is still adhering to the ban on debating the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. If that is right, I draw his attention to a sentence in the Bill itself in which it states:
"be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".
I can understand that if we have a debate and pass the Bill our consent can be assumed. However, perhaps my noble friend will say how, if we are not allowed to make a debating speech on the Bill, we tender the advice which the Bill itself says we tender?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend answered his question by agreeing with me that the Lords spiritual and temporal will pass the Bill this afternoon. My noble friend returns to the subject regularly. Therefore he will not be surprised if I refer him to the Companion to the Standing Orders, which sets out the convention on the proceedings for the Consolidated Fund Bill. I remind him that that convention was endorsed by the Procedure Committee as recently as March 1994.
I appreciate that my noble friend is keen to discuss economic and industrial matters. I remind him that he will have such an opportunity next Wednesday on a Motion put down by my noble friend Lord Prior. In addition, there will be a full Second Reading of the Finance Bill before 5th April. My noble friend will get two bites at this particular cherry before the Easter break.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, another small tradition connected with these Consolidated Fund Bills is that I usually rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his wish for greater time to debate economic matters. In this instance, as the party opposite has put down a debate for next Wednesday, when the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Government's economic policy will be fully exposed, I shall not make my traditional plea for more time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely the question is not what is in the Bill but what the House wants to do. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter wants to debate the Bill. Most of your Lordships do not want to debate the Bill. Is that not the end of the matter?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend is not going to answer that particularly silly intervention, will he answer the question that I asked; namely, how, if the Bill itself says that the consent and advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal has been given, that advice is to be given if we are not allowed to debate the Bill?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I usually rise to support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said on this matter. As one who profoundly disagrees with the uses to which the funds in the Consolidated Fund have been put, I view with some incredulity the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to conduct a canvass of opinion in this House as to whether your Lordships agree with him on this matter. I am quite sure
1322
that, with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for example, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, we could probably rustle up a majority in favour of a complete discussion of the Bill.
Will the Government think again about this matter in view of the pressure that is exercised from time to time and year by year and the eloquent phrases of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have been referred to by name for some reason which I do not understand. Is it not the case that if the House passes the Motion now before it, it will he giving advice, whether after speeches by noble Lords or in the absence of speeches by noble Lords?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to this brief, interesting and totally unpredictable debate. My noble friend should bear in mind that the other place does not debate this Bill either, and that the matter has been referred, at his instance, to the Procedure Committee. As I mentioned in my original response to him, the Procedure Committee decided to make no change. If he wishes to carry on this discussion, the Procedure Committee is the right place to do that.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I believe that inadvertently my noble friend the Minister may not have given the House a full account of what happens in another place. The procedure there was changed many years ago. The Consolidated Fund Bill is now taken without debate; but it is immediately followed by a Motion for the adjournment of the House, on which extensive debate takes place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, although as regards this particular Consolidated Fund Bill there is the opportunity for an economic debate next Wednesday and the debate on the Finance Bill shortly, that is not always so. For example, the next Consolidated Fund Bill will come to us at some time in the late summer. That is in the middle of a very long period when there is no debate on economic and financial matters. Perhaps I may venture to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that this matter should really be seriously considered again.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Committee negatived; then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 22nd March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTFES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Vesting of property, &c. of Crown Agents in a successor company]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, after ("day"), insert (", and for a period of not less than five years following the appointed day,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I hope that it will be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 3.
We have tabled several amendments on the Marshalled List today and I should therefore begin by setting out our intentions clearly so that the Committee is in no doubt about the choices before us. However, first, I must draw attention to the scrutiny committee report on the Bill. It makes for sober reading, raising as it does again anxieties about still more erosion of our parliamentary democracy.
I have yet to hear any satisfactory case made by the Government for removing the Crown Agents from the public sector. The Crown Agents are a classic example of the best kind of public enterprise, combining commercial success with public service in a way in which so many British institutions have done so well. Like the World Service of the BBC, the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Royal Mail, the Crown Agents have set standards of integrity, efficiency and ethical business practice which do this country proud in the eyes of the rest of the world.
At the behest, I suspect, of her colleagues rather than by her own much respected judgment, the Minister has put before the Committee a misleading choice: to leave matters as they are or to privatise the Crown Agents. That misses the opportunity to follow what we believe to be the best course available for Crown Agents and indeed for other public sector corporations: to provide greater commercial freedom to do business without removing the security of public ownership or the advantages to the public interest of retaining such valuable assets as part of our national heritage.
That is why we have put down the amendments to Clause 1, the effect of which would be to insist that Crown Agents should remain as a public asset for a minimum period of five years after the passage of this Bill and that they should not be alienated even after that time without the positive assent of both Houses of Parliament. If the amendments are approved by the Committee, I believe that the worst aspects of the Bill will be dealt with in one fell swoop.
We have, of course, also indicated our support for other amendments to the Bill which at first sight may appear to have quite different effects. Some of those amendments provide explicitly for the transfer of ownership of the Crown Agents to a non-profit foundation operating within the private sector, while others provide only for greater parliamentary scrutiny of whatever the Foreign Secretary chooses to do.
The course that we favour is clearly to retain the Crown Agents within the public sector for a minimum of five years. However, as a backstop for that position, we believe that the foundation which the Minister herself has said is the Government's preferred option
1324
should be firmly written into the Bill as the organisational objective. In the cause of open government, and for the record, that will make plain how the Government want to privatise. Ministerial background briefings are no substitute for such a step.
Our third line of defence of the public interest is to insist that, however the Foreign Secretary disposes of the Crown Agents, he should have to obtain the consent of Parliament when his plans are finally revealed.
It is instructive to read again the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate. The Minister was pressed by a number of noble Lords to explain why Crown Agents should not be retained and given greater commercial freedom within the public sector. If I may say so, she went to extraordinary lengths to avoid answering that question. The Minister conceded our point that the chairman of the Crown Agents had himself expressed a preference for remaining in the public sector in the Crown Agents' annual report for 1993. That report was submitted to Parliament nearly a year after the Minister had announced the Government's own preference for privatisation, so it would be reasonable to expect the Minister to explain why the Crown Agents' advice has been ignored. We waited for such an explanation in the Minister's closing remarks during Second Reading, but none was forthcoming.
The Minister did say some things about the problems with Crown Agents operating as a public sector corporation. She said that the problem was that "Ministers interfere". But she failed to provide a single example of interference by herself or by the Foreign Secretary that has led to Crown Agents failing to take advantage of a business opportunity. On the contrary, she explained that other governments and aid agencies are very happy with the relationship between Crown Agents and Government Ministers and indeed are anxious that this should not change.
The Minister stated that Crown Agents:
"have always been the agents of what are now independent governments and, increasingly, aid agencies. In my discussions with other governments it has been clear that that is how it should be. Governments of all parties have also been careful not to interfere"—
the Committee may note those words—
"with the work that Crown Agents do for other independent governments".—[Official Report, 28/2/95; col. 1440.]
The Minister told the House that the Government could not stand back from detailed control if they continued to bear the ultimate financial responsibility. I frankly fail to see why not. The fact that the Government bear ultimate financial responsibility provides enormous reassurance to Crown Agents' overseas clients. It underpins a business which the Minister herself said possesses only modest assets and achieves only a modest profit which is largely made possible by the good management of their pension fund. Without government underwriting, there can be no guarantee of Crown Agents' success and ultimate survival in the open market. But that underwriting does not impose an obligation on Ministers to interfere unless they perceive that Crown Agents are incapable of managing their own affairs without cost to the public

1325
purse. All the evidence of the past 15 years is that Crown Agents are more than capable of doing their job without government subsidy or detailed control.
This House will consider next week a further Bill in the Minister's name to give greater commercial freedom within the public sector to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We shall welcome that measure. It has met no opposition in another place. It sets out a formula to allow the CDC to do business with private sector clients in developing countries, free of unnecessary constraints by Ministers on its ability to borrow and invest.
When that Bill was debated in another place, the Minister responsible said that the Government had considered privatisation of the CDC, but having regard to the particular work that CDC does, they concluded that it would be better for it to remain in the public sector. The Minister refused to say why, of course, because the arguments for keeping CDC in public ownership would apply with equal force to Crown Agents. The Minister in this House will not say what is wrong with public ownership for Crown Agents; the Minister in another place will not say why public ownership is best for the CDC.
But wait. A Conservative Member in another place wanted to know whether the Minister was satisfied that the CDC would be,
"every bit as rigorous and aggressive",
in doing business in developing countries,
"as a genuine private sector investor would be when shareholders' money was at stake".
"Yes", said the Minister, no problem. The CDC is an extremely businesslike organisation, just like the Crown Agents, operating within the public sector. Unlike the Crown Agents, it is to continue to do so and its future is assured.
The Minister has not said so in the House, but perhaps the reason that she will not amend the 1979 Act to allow Crown Agents more freedom within the public sector is fear of Treasury rules. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other possible explanation.
The Minister does not dispute that a number of undertakings have been required by foreign governments, such as not to go for a trade sale, guarantees of continuing client confidentiality and,
"full assurances to the international clients of Crown Agents"
that the new owners,
"will maintain a continuity of principles and purpose with those of the existing corporation".—[Official Report, 28/2/95; col. 141.]
A privatisation hedged about with so many necessary precautions seems hardly worth the effort. The international clients of Crown Agents, like Crown Agents themselves, would no doubt be much happier if the Government left well alone and allowed the Crown Agents to continue as a public sector corporation with increased commercial freedom to do the job they already do so well. The five years we propose before a further transfer of ownership should allow Ministers to find the necessary formula to let that happen. After all, the Treasury rules which Ministers treat as sacrosanct may well have changed in five years' time.
If the Committee approves our amendments, the Government will have time to go away and think again. I earnestly hope that they will do so. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak in favour of Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, not because we on these Benches think that the Crown Agents' natural position should be in the public sector or the private sector, but because we are keen to ensure that the Crown Agents are in a position to act in the best interests of those whom they serve.
However, the problem we face with the Bill is that it seems to have been brought forward in a hasty manner and there is little to it. It is just a crude enabling Bill with little safeguard that Parliament would be able to see the final results of the changes and agree to them.
Amendment No. 3 is another amendment which follows the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's resolutions on which I shall speak later. I support the amendments.
Baroness Elles: I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is still fighting his rearguard action for retaining the Crown Agents in the public sector. I thought that the overwhelming feeling during the Second Reading debate—certainly on this side of the House—was that we should support the Government in releasing the Crown Agents from the public sector. They should be privatised and be able to carry out full commercial activities for the benefit of both their own company, which would be formed, and of their clients as they increased throughout the world.
I suggest that Amendment No. 1 is a damper on any possibility of the Crown Agents benefiting from the Bill in order to carry on their new task as a privatised commercial company. I strongly urge my noble friend totally to reject Amendment No. 1, as I am sure she will.
I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 3. We shall wait during the proceedings on the Bill to hear more about the future status and framework under which the Crown Agents will operate. During the course of the Second Reading debate, the Minister undertook that through the proceedings of the Committee and Report stages and Third Reading we would be informed of further details about the future of the Crown Agents and their statutory framework. If we are not so informed, at some stage we must look for further debate in Parliament. I have always held that a vast amount of secondary legislation—whether it be European or British legislation—goes by without any democratic or parliamentary scrutiny. Thus I have a certain sympathy for the principle expressed in Amendment No. 3. I shall look to the Minister to give us the information that is required so that the amendment will have no justification, nor will it be needed in any way.
Lord Elton: There are two levels of parliamentary scrutiny for delegated legislation: the affirmative and the negative procedures. The affirmative procedure is more stringent than the negative procedure because with it matters have to be debated, whereas with the negative procedure a matter is only debated if required. I merely intervene to say that it seems odd that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, should rest so much weight on the report of

1327
the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member. He then put down Amendment No. 3 which attracts to a transfer of ownership—a lesser decision than the construction of the new company—a higher order of scrutiny for the initial formation than is proposed, even in Amendment No. 4 which, oddly, is not grouped with these two. It seems to me that, because he lays such weight on the report, he would have followed the advice of the Committee. I hope that my noble friend will bear that in mind.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: In responding to the proposal in Amendment No. 1 by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my noble friend Lady Elles was absolutely right. The amendment strikes right at the heart of the Bill. I thought I explained carefully at Second Reading why I believe that it would be wrong for the Government to retain ownership of the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents' main work—of which we are all rightly proud—has always been as agents of the now independent governments and increasingly the aid agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, used a quotation from one of my Second Reading speeches.
Governments of all parties have been careful not to interfere in Crown Agents, and I have been most careful as a Minister not to interfere, but to keep a watchful eye on what they are doing. Because they knew that I was keeping a watchful eye, I did not need to interfere, However, there was always the risk that one day I might interfere with Crown Agents.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made some play of the discussion at Second Reading and subsequent stages of the CDC Bill in another place. He sought to put CDC and Crown Agents in exactly the same category. Perhaps I may explain to him why I do not believe that the same situation applies. The Crown Agents and CDC have different histories. Their roles are very different. Legislation recognises the distinctive identity and purpose and provides for continued growth into the future for each of them. The job of CDC is to act as a catalyst for private sector investment in developing countries, showing others that they can invest profitably in poorer countries so as to energise the private sector to follow and make investments of its own.
The private sector CDC would be bound to take a very different attitude to profit and risk which would be incompatible with developmental objectives which the Government have set for it. So in that sense, if in no other, I think that I have explained the difference. As I said, Crown Agents' main work is as agents of now independent governments. The present Act still requires us—and would do, if the noble Lord had his way—to involve ourselves in business decisions. Therefore we have proposed the transfer to the private sector in order to strengthen Crown Agents' ability to meet the needs of their customers by removing unnecessary restrictions.
Crown Agents have spent a relatively brief period as a public corporation. I shall not go back to the pre-1979 situation—though I can if noble Lords require it. The regulatory framework of the 1979 Act was established to meet the problems and circumstances that were
1328
specific at that time. Things have now changed, and there is no reason why Crown Agents should continue to be owned by government.
I made it quite clear at Second Reading that the most appropriate framework of control would be provided by a foundation in the private sector. That would give Crown Agents' international clients the assurances that they require. So long as the Government continue to bear ultimate financial responsibility, Crown Agents would continue to be subject to those unnecessary constraints of one sort or another. Therefore we seek to give Crown Agents the power to make their own business decisions, including borrowing in the future. Without such a freedom, that relationship, the ability to decide on their own borrowing, would be limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, seems to think that the Bill is driven by ideology, given the way in which he phrased his amendment. It is not. It is a measured and practical response to the changing business needs of Crown Agents. That is why, to keep up with the times, we have suggested the transfer to the foundation. That would give the Crown Agents a complete, modern and constitutional framework in which we can all have confidence.
I have to say that Amendment No. I, which makes the nomination of the company in which the assets of Crown Agents will vest on the appointed day subject to a delay of at least five years, really is an unsatisfactory and wrecking measure. I am surprised that the noble Lord has pursued it in this way. It would leave Crown Agents in limbo. They would not know what decisions they would be able to take at the five-year point or at some point thereafter, because the wording is "not less than five years". If the transfer of Crown Agents to the private sector is to be delayed for at least five years, as the noble Lord's amendment proposes, then we might as well not have the "not less than five years"; we might as well not have the Bill. That is of course exactly what the noble Lord wants.
I know that in the past Parliament has expressed concern about the control that can be exercised over companies in the public sector. But control over companies is less direct than the specific controls provided for by the 1979 legislation over the statutory corporation that the Crown Agents now is. That control, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly said, has to be exercised by the Minister through his shareholding and the other arrangements with the company.
All this is at one remove from Parliament and is less transparent. The same degree of control would be necessary while the company remained in public ownership, but the direct parliamentary control which Parliament normally thinks desirable just would not be there. Certainly, the provision of Amendment No. 1 would not give important customers like the Japanese Government the reassurance that they seek, and the reassurance which the foundation most clearly would offer, I cannot believe that this state of affairs is what the noble Lord had in mind when he tabled the amendment. But one never knows with the noble Lord. I join with my noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Elton: we should indeed oppose this amendment.

1329
Turning to Amendment No. 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, spoke in the main, and my noble friend Lady Elles, I understand the concern of noble Lords that we give Crown Agents the right start for a successful future while retaining their traditional standards of probity and impartiality. That is a common objective.
I also understand the desire to allow Parliament to look again at the details of the proposals for transfer. I have noted very carefully the report of the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Powers. But as my noble friend Lord Elton said, it would have been much more logical had the proposals referred to the future foundation rather than the transfer in what is an enabling Bill.
I have considered very carefully whether an affirmative resolution procedure would be appropriate under Clause 1 of the Bill, but I do not believe that that is the right approach. We have taken the advice of government legal advisers, and they assure me that it would be quite unprecedented to proceed in that way. The Bill before us follows established precedents. The normal practice is to take enabling legislation when transferring organisations to the private sector. That approach is well tried and tested. It has been accepted by this House and the other place on every previous occasion. I do not believe that any of the arguments that have been put forward today convinced me that an exception should be made in this case. I shall be very open with noble Lords, as will the Government, throughout this procedure. Indeed, I can assure my noble friend Lady Elles that much more information about the intended ultimate owner will be available than would normally be the case with, for example, a trade sale, because there will be less commercial confidentiality.
As to the practical effects of the amendment, I believe that the practical effect of introducing an affirmative resolution procedure would be damaging to Crown Agents' interest. I believe it to be unnecessary. I have already assured the Committee that I shall keep Members fully informed, as indeed I shall Parliament as a whole, of our plans as we go forward. It is only fair to point out that privatisation negotiations are complex. Much of the information is normally commercially confidential and would not be disclosed in the way that has been suggested. But, because of pressures of other business, we know that obtaining parliamentary approval can be a long drawn out process. That could seriously hamper the proposed transfer. I would not want to put the future Crown Agents foundation in any jeopardy from that.
The main concern about this transfer of Crown Agents to the private sector was fully debated at Second Reading, and today we shall go through the amendments that are on the Marshalled List. I will consider the substance of the points during our negotiations on the transfer. But I am quite certain that it is not in Crown Agents' commercial interest for this House to sow the seeds of doubt or uncertainty about the Government's plans or the timing of when the transfer would take place. It is for those reasons that I urge noble Lords to reject Amendment No. 1 and, with it, Amendment No. 3.
Lord Judd: I always find the Minister personally irresistible. If irresistible charm were the basis of good government, we should have a very strong Government. Unfortunately, there is much more to the issues that are before us than the personality, and indeed the integrity, of the Minister, which we all greatly admire on this side of the Chamber.
That is the problem with this Bill. We have a skeleton Bill, an enabling Bill, which spells out absolutely nothing about what will happen. It invites us to buy a pig in a poke. And we have a lot of very well-intended and convincing arguments—indeed some on paper—and background briefings from a Minister whom we all love and admire. The problem is that the Minister may not always be there. Some of us who have worked for much of our lives in the realm of third world issues and development might sometimes wish in some ways that, if only she could somehow free herself of political allegiances, she could always be there in one sense, and that would be a wonderful element of continuity in government. But that is not, I think, likely to happen. The noble Baroness will forgive my saying that I sometimes wonder whether she does not toy with the idea herself. I cannot believe that, in the environment in which she lives, she does not. But I do not believe that it is likely to happen. Our function therefore, as responsible parliamentarians, is to ensure that whatever is being done is done in the interests of the nation as a whole, that it is preserving the assets of the nation, and that the dedicated work and effectiveness of the Crown Agents and their staff, to whom the Minister paid such fulsome tribute in the Second Reading debate, is not lightly thrown away or sold down the river.
It is for those reasons that some of us on this side of the Committee are a little perplexed. There is absolutely nothing in any of our amendments that does anything but write into the Bill all that the Minister said in her background briefings. We are trying to strengthen her position and want to reassure everyone that what she says is her objective and what she wants to see done can be properly done.
Let me deal very briefly with one or two of the points that she made. She said that CDC is different because it is a catalyst for development. I am sure she will agree that, as she herself emphasised—she has been at pains to underline the point—the Crown Agents' role is about supporting economic and social development. So that is a complementary function. It does not seem to me so self-evident as she seems to want to persuade herself that it is that they are in two completely different categories. It does not seem so at all. If the one is right in the public sector, the other sits naturally alongside it in the public sector.
The Minister has also emphasised that the main work of the Crown Agents is with foreign governments. That is obviously the case. I have not seen any evidence at all that foreign governments favour that change. All the indications are that foreign governments would rather things were left exactly as they are. She also made some play about her watchful eye. I repeat that if I were to have any watchful eye upon me, I cannot think of any other that I would prefer to have. The implication in saying that there is a watchful eye which provides

1331
discipline is that that watchful eye is necessary. The persuasive way in which she made the point underlines it. She cannot have it both ways. If this activity is to become at arm's length and still further removed from potential ministerial control, she will be removing the force of the watchful eye that she implied was necessary.
I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about her impression of Second Reading. That is her impression. My own antennae do not suggest to me that there is a militant feeling of commitment among her noble friends that this is a Bill that must happen at all costs. At best there is passive acquiescence in what is proposed. Certainly, it may be my own failing in this respect, but quite frankly I am mystified by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do not see how the transfer of ownership is an issue of less importance than the structure of the company. It seems to me that the ownership is crucial to the future.
Lord Elton: I rise merely to point out that they were of equal importance. The noble Lord relied on the advice of the Committee, and the advice of the Committee was to have the negative procedure. He had proposed the affirmative procedure.
Lord Judd: On that point I did as the noble Lord said. I was grateful to the Committee for having alerted me. The more I looked at the issue, the Committee having alerted me, the more I felt that it was in the spirit of parliamentary control that the proper discharging of parliamentary responsibility to this fine and proven asset was to take the affirmative road.
No, I am afraid that I am as convinced as ever that the Bill has more to do with political manoeuvrings within the Government. It was some kind of ideological sop to the Right wing of the party opposite because they were denied seeing the Post Office moving into private hands. I do not believe that there is any pressure for this Bill within the Crown Agents or any pressure within the Government in terms of the Overseas Development Administration. It would be irresponsible of this House to pursue it. If we do so, we shall do our utmost in subsequent amendments to make the best of a bad job. The Minister says that the amendments that we are now debating are pointed at the heart of the Bill. It is a charge that I willingly accept. I am afraid that we must push this matter to a Division.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Airedale, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Barnett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carter, L.

Birk, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blackstone, B.

Chandos, V.

1332

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mayhew, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Essington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.[Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stallard, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tope, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ailsa, M.

Downshire, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dudley, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Effingham, E.

Annaly, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elles, B.

Elton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Astor, V.

Ferrers, E.

Blake, L.

Finsberg, L.

Blaker, L.

Gage, V.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Bridges, L.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Haddington, E.

Burnham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Halsbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Hanworth, V.

Caldecote, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hogg, B.

Cart of Hadley, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Knollys, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Liverpool, E.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lyell, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Davidson, V.

1333

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rankeillour, L.

Rawlings, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Renwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mersey, V.

Roskill, L.

Middleton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Milverton, L.

Shannon, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sharples, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Morris, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Munster, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson, E.

Terrington, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Teviot, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Poole, L.

Wise, L.

Pym, L.

Young, B.

Quinton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("and must be a company limited by guarantee").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee. On looking at the amendment on the Marshalled List I see that there is a drafting error. Instead of reading "Page 1, line 18", it should read "Page 1, line 10". It does not change the substantive issue on the Bill.
The aim of the amendment is to find out why the Minister will not put on the face of the Bill the fact that it should be a company limited by guarantee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I am advised by the Clerk that Amendment No. 2 cannot be taken now; it should have been taken before Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord therefore will have to bring it back at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("() Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12 which is grouped with it. The two amendments seek to ensure that Parliament has the ability to scrutinise the eventual form
1334
of the successor company. They follow closely the recommendations put forward by the scrutiny committee which, in relation to Amendment No. 4, reads:
"The Committee therefore draws the power in Clause 1 to the attention of the House as the House may wish to consider whether the order nominating the successor company should be subject to the negative procedure to give the House an opportunity to debate the order should any member wish to do so".
In relation to Amendment No. 12 the committee said:
"The Committee notes that it is intended to use the power only once. However, it can be used to displace existing orders that are themselves subject to the affirmative procedure. The House may therefore wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure might be more appropriate for the exercise of this power".
I believe that the Minister covered some of the points as to why objection will be taken to the amendment. However, in raising the issue, the noble Baroness said that in previous enabling Bills the suggestions that I am putting forward were not seen to be appropriate. Perhaps she can advise us which former enabling Bills dealt with the issue. The successor company will be moved from the public to the private sector, but it will not be a trade sell-off; there will be no buyer of the company. This appears to be, therefore, a new form of enabling Bill. Perhaps the Minister can give us earlier examples if that is not so.
The Minister said that the Bill is being introduced for the good of the Crown Agents. The amendments seek to ensure that Parliament is given the right to scrutinise the orders. In the Second Reading debate the Minister said that it was not necessary to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. The amendment was tabled to enable us to see what the successor company will look like and what form it will take. We do not believe that the words are present in the Bill to enable us to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I am happy to support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 4 on the grounds that I mentioned earlier this afternoon. I am convinced that simply because of the value of the asset, the commitment that has gone into it and its significance not only for the work the Crown Agents do themselves but also for the whole standing of the United Kingdom throughout the world, this is not something to be handled lightly behind the filing cabinets of Whitehall. It is something to be done openly; to be demonstrably well done and to be debated and scrutinised in this Chamber. Therefore I warmly applaud the amendment.
Baroness Elles: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 13 concerning the negative resolution on Clause 12(2).
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether my noble friend has made a mistake. Does she wish to speak to Amendment No. 12? My noble friend said Amendment No. 13, but that does not come within this group.
Baroness Elles: I apologise to the Committee. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 12 which is to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 4. I wish to refer the Committee to the Third Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which specifically says:
"Orders are not subject to Parliamentary control although they are statutory instruments by virtue of Clause 12(2). The House may consider that the propose to be achieved by orders under Clause 12(1) is sufficiently defined to make the absence of Parliamentary control acceptable".

1335
One would think therefore that the forceful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are inappropriate in this case.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We must realise that officials have to go on administering this Bill and other affairs, and that parliamentary control is an appalling nuisance to them. For centuries there has been tension between the Executive and the legislature and the officials are by no means to be blamed. A Bill is the worst thing from their point of view, with three Readings or more in each House with the possibility of amendments which are generally, in the view of Whitehall, ill considered, throwing them off their course. That is the worst thing. The affirmative resolution is next worst; the negative resolution follows after; and no parliamentary control is just heaven.
We have been through all this time and again. In the end, the opinion in your Lordships' House was so strong that the Jellicoe Committee advised the setting up of a scrutiny committee. That was the one proposal of the Jellicoe Committee as to which the Government expressed reservation. The reservation was a typical Whitehall reservation. It was quite understandable, as I said, but there is no reason why your Lordships should put up with it. We now have the scrutiny committee and it is most important that we should insist that when it draws a matter to the attention of your Lordships' House, in terms that are now significant in the signals it emits, your Lordships should follow the guidance of the scrutiny committee.
I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that there is a distinction here, reading the scrutiny committee report, between the two amendments. However, in my respectful opinion we should certainly follow implicitly where the scrutiny committee disapproves of the absence of sufficient parliamentary control. I certainly support the second amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: In moving Amendment No. 4, with which Amendment No. 12 to Clause 13 is grouped, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that this was an unusual privatisation—I paraphrase his words—and that because there would be no trade sell-off there would perhaps need to be some further provision for examination. The very opposite may be true, because there are precedents in the field of privatisation legislation in which the Minister has been given power to amend primary and secondary legislation for consequential purposes by means of negative procedure orders. However, this is not one of those.
I understand very well what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lady Elles are saying and I have taken great care to note the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in its third report. The concern which they have expressed by inviting your Lordships to consider whether the order nominating the successor company should be subject to the negative procedure is reflected in the noble Lord's amendment. But during this debate the case has been put under Amendment No. 4 for introducing the affirmative resolution procedure under
1336
Clause 1 of the Bill. In speaking to Amendment No. 1, with which Amendment No. 3 was grouped, I explained why I did not feel able to accept that. So the same considerations, needless to say, apply to Amendment No. 4. I think it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to accept that amendment. Although Amendment No. 12 goes less far in proposing the negative procedure, the principle is still the same.
Perhaps I may now focus my remarks on the comments of my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I understood well the report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee but I feel I should emphasise to the Committee that these are consequential matters. The power is there so that references to the Crown Agents in subordinate legislation can be removed or altered in so far as is necessary in consequence of the Bill—that is to say, in consequence of the fact that the Crown Agents will no longer exist as a public body. I can accept that at least one of the statutory instruments needing amendment was made by the affirmative resolution procedure. There may be others. But in these cases the amendments or the revocations are likely to be very minor indeed. Precedent on Bills such as this does not require the affirmative procedure for consequential matters even where a Minister is given the power to deal with primary legislation, as I cited at the beginning of my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
There is sympathy for the principle that there should be appropriate parliamentary control over subordinate regulation-making powers. However, I am not convinced that a requirement for a debate in both Houses to approve the kinds of amendments and revocations which may be made by the power under Clause 13 would be appropriate. Your Lordships know that I am always happy to debate these matters and I shall be happy indeed to attend on a Friday to do so. I imagine that that is when such matters would be tabled in this House. But I foresee that there would be a need for a special introduction of Friday business if we were to have such debates on all the legislation—for if the procedure is carried out for this Bill, it will need to be carried out for a number of other Bills.
My problem is this. I do not know what more we would be saying than we were actually saying in our Second Reading debate. The order before us would be an order whose sole purpose would be to tidy up provisions of other statutory instruments referring to Crown Agents, the statutory corporation. Once the transfer under this Bill takes place those provisions would become ineffective because there would no longer be Crown Agents as such. Therefore, I have some real difficulty in deciding what might be then discussed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is not the noble Baroness being rather cavalier in referring to tidying up primary legislation when one considers the role of Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Lord, as he well knows, but in this case we are talking about the residual matters from other statutory instruments which would no longer have any force because the Crown Agents would not be there as such. That is why, worthy as the intention is

1337
that we have proper debate—with that I firmly agree—I do not think that debating all over again the issue of whether there should be a statutory corporation Crown Agents in the public sector, which is all I can see would be discussed if such an order came forward, would be appropriate. The decision would already have taken place by the passing of the Bill. We might have a lot of long silences.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps I may probe two of the observations which she has made in her contribution. She earlier indicated that this is an enabling Bill. The Crown Agents are not any organisation. What we are saying is that before the final consequences of the Bill are clinched it is important that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
The second matter is related to what the noble Baroness has just said. I shall be fascinated to hear more from her about it. I could hardly believe it when she argued that it was because of the pressure on parliamentary business and the possibility that we might have to meet on a Friday that we could not take a particular course. Surely, it is the significance of the issue and not the convenience of the House which is important.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I am very happy to meet on a Friday. I spent 18 happy years meeting on Fridays in another place. Therefore, while I know it will not please some Members of the Committee, I am very happy to meet on a Friday. That is not the reason I would give against this particular amendment.
The third report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee makes clear that Clause 13(3), with which Amendment No. 12 deals, allows the Secretary of State to make such amendments or revocations of any subordinate legislation as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the Bill. That of itself may seem to be a subject for further investigation in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as regards what is happening to the Bill. But that is not the procedure. This matter relates to subordinate legislation related to the Crown Agents Act 1979; it is not dealing with the transfer of the Crown Agents to a foundation. If the noble Lord were making the case on that I would understand him better. I do not believe that that is the point.
I return to what I was saying earlier in trying to address the proposal of the scrutiny committee. It suggests that affirmative procedures may be appropriate to the order-making power. That suggestion is based on the proposition that the instruments being amended may have been subject to the affirmative procedure themselves. Indeed they may have been. At least one, but I believe not many, of the orders which we shall need to amend was subject to the affirmative procedure. It was the second banking co-ordination directive, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will probably remember from his own personal experience.
The reference to the Crown Agents was included in that directive expressly as a minor or consequential amendment. It was hardly the reason why the order was
1338
subject to affirmative procedure. In short, I believe it is fair to say that the fact that the order to be amended was subject to a particular procedure does not mean that an amending order should be subject to precisely the same procedure. We should be looking at what procedure is appropriate for the amending order.
Let us suppose that the order we make under Clause 13 would give us something to debate on a Friday or on any other day, although I find it hard to think of an example—
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am certain that she is one of those in the Government most in favour of transparent and open government. I ask her to read very carefully in the Official Report the past three or four minutes of her contribution. Having read it, I ask her to persuade herself that that is a contribution which the wider public, of whose assets we are the trustees, would see as a good example of open and clear government as regards what is being done.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may helpfully extend the interruption to give a personal view on Clause 13. The Select Committee's recommendation, as my noble friend said, was that where an affirmative order was about to be rescinded the House would wish to consider whether that order was appropriate for that procedure. The House has considered it. My noble friend has been extraordinarily helpful and has made the question transparent by indicating the solitary order which has been through the affirmative process and which would be swept up in the future procedure. That seems to answer a good deal of the Committee's concerns, but I can only speak for myself. I am a great deal happier to take part in this debate in the light of my noble friend's assurance than I was earlier. I find what she said very reassuring.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I am delighted that I have satisfied one out of three customers on this matter. Although I do not know, I suspect that I may not yet have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Perhaps I may make one further point about Clause 13(3). It provides only that the Secretary of State, as I said just now, has power by order to amend or revoke subordinate legislation if it appears to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, knows far better than I that the subordinate legislation has the meaning given in Section 21 of the Interpretation Act 1978 which is,
"Orders in council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, byelaws and other instruments made or to be made under any Act".
So the Bill we are debating today in Committee includes already provisions to deal with consequential modifications of statute law where these have been identified as necessary. But, following precedent in other legislation, this provision provides the necessary safeguard which will allow the Secretary of State to amend or revoke the subordinate legislation where that might be necessary as a consequence of this Bill.

1339
Therefore, any order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State would be subject anyway to the negative resolution procedure. As I have managed to identify for my noble friend Lord Elton the one piece of secondary legislation that could be covered by this matter, I hope that I may have satisfied the Committee that Amendments Nos. 4 and 12 are really not necessary and that they should be rejected.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for her reply. Considering the complex nature of the argument and also the clear recommendations from the scrutiny committee, I hope that the noble Baroness understands that we may come back to this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of ownership of the successor company
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order transfer ownership of the successor company only to a foundation, which shall be constituted as a company limited by guarantee.
(2) The Memorandum and Articles of Association of a foundation formed under subsection (1) above shall be contained in any order which may he issued under that subsection, and Schedule (Memorandum and Articles of Association) has effect for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of this section.
(3) Shares in the foundation formed under subsection (I) above shall be issued only to members of the said foundation, who shall be appointed by order by the Secretary of State.
(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 13 which is consequential. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 which refer to the title of the Crown Agents and are dependent in part on Amendments Nos. 5 and 13.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 13 have three effects. The first is to seek to encapsulate the type of non-profit, development-oriented foundation which the Minister has described as the Government's own preferred option and to write the intended new owner of the Crown Agents, which is the foundation, on to the face of the Bill. In other words, it is to put heart into the legislation. The amendments also have the effect of subjecting the process of transfer to such new owners to further parliamentary scrutiny so that both Houses shall be satisfied that the terms of the transfer protect the public interest and the work of the Crown Agents. They also have the effect of insisting that the initial members of the foundation should be appointed by Ministers accountable to Parliament rather than by the present Crown Agents who hold their posts only by courtesy of ministerial appointment.
As regards the first of those effects, we who are moving the amendment are seeking to do only what we feel should properly have been done by Ministers themselves. As I said on Second Reading—and a number of noble Lords said the same—I still do not
1340
fully understand why that has not been done. There are different views in the House about whether the privatisation of the Crown Agents is necessary or appropriate—we have had that debate—but I believe that noble Lords will have given a widespread welcome to the Minister's categorical assurance on Second Reading that the Government have rejected the option of a trade sale of the Crown Agents. There will also be general agreement that, if the Crown Agents are to be privatised, the new owners should be the type of the foundation which the Minister has described.
However, we do not believe that it is enough for the Minister simply to indicate her intentions in such a general way. There appears to be no good reason why the Government should not spell out their intentions in detail and include some definition of the proposed foundation on the face of the Bill. They have not done so. We have not attempted to do so in full in the amendments, but they lay down some minimum requirements which we believe should be included in the Bill at this stage. I hope that if the amendments are passed, the Minister will come back to the House with further amendments that will put meat on the bones which the amendments offer.
The Bill as it stands at present takes a public sector corporation, which is accountable to Ministers and to Parliament, and replaces it with a company wholly owned by the Crown and entirely at the disposal of the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill also provides the means for Ministers to dispose of the successor company without further reference to Parliament, If the Government should have a change of heart about their preferred option after the passage of the Bill but before the appointed day, as the Bill stands at the moment, there is nothing that Parliament can do to hold the Government to the preference which the Minister stated on Second Reading.
If the Bill is to be passed, it should cover not only the initial transfer from the existing corporation to the Foreign Secretary, but also the next stage of the transfer from the Foreign Secretary to the new owners in the private sector. It should spell out that the new owners should be a foundation and committed to developmental objectives. It should require the constitution and membership of the foundation to be approved by Parliament before the transfer takes place. We have already discussed that point to some extent and I am sure that we shall continue to do so.
We are also concerned that the new foundation should continue to operate on the terms, and with the purposes, set for it at the outset. The Minister has spoken of the Foreign Secretary retaining reserve powers for an initial five-year period to ensure that the principles and purposes of the foundation are not changed within that time. That implies some degree of continuing accountability to a Minister who is accountable to Parliament, and is therefore welcome. But we should go further and insist that the assets acquired by the foundation should not then be disposed of to another body without explicit parliamentary consent.
Likewise, the amendments seek to clarify the position as regards the appointment of members of the foundation. It appears at present that the Government's intention is that the initial members should include the current Crown Agents. That is right because they have done a good job, and should continue to do so with our support. However, it also appears that other members are to be appointed by the Crown Agents, who are ministerial appointees, rather than by Ministers themselves which, to say the least, is an odd way of doing things.
We therefore propose that the appointments should be the clear responsibility of Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. If the Minister is prepared to take responsibility for appointing the present Crown Agents to the new foundation, there is no good reason why the Government should not equally be responsible for the other members also. The Government's proposals appear to create two classes of foundation member: the first to be appointed by Ministers, with the second group being appointed by the first group. That is illogical, inconsistent and, we feel, unwise. It would be much simpler and clearer if all members of the new foundation were appointed in the same way and by the same people. The amendments will give effect to the Government's preferred option while improving accountability.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 refer to the name "Crown Agents". As it stands, the Bill offers any potential purchaser of the Crown Agents not only the property, rights and assets of the existing public sector corporation, but also its name and everything that goes with it. Of course, plenty of private sector companies use the word "Crown" or something of the sort in their name. There are some excellent establishments which I and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee visit on occasion which boast titles which include the word "Crown" or something of that sort, such as "The Rose and Crown" or "The King's Head". Perhaps noble Lords on this side of the Committee should be the ones to use "The Rose and Crown". We know the Conservative Party to be deeply in debt to the Royal Bank of Scotland, its major creditor, but we know—at least we hope—that the Royal Bank of Scotland does not claim other than a commercial relationship with Her Majesty's Government.
The Government are right to recognise that the name "Crown Agents" falls into a different category. The good name and reputation of the Crown Agents are universally agreed to be their major assets, and the fact that their good name specifically asserts a close connection with Her Majesty's Government is of vital importance.
The very fact that provision for the transfer of the name is spelled out in the Bill, when provision for the transfer of everything else is not, affirms the Government's recognition of that reality. Ministers know as well as anyone else that the Crown is seen as the ultimate guarantor of the integrity and financial security of the corporation, and that that is part of the
1342
reason why so many overseas governments and aid agencies trust the Crown Agents to look after their precious funds.
The Crown Agents should keep their name, even if they go into the private sector, as long as there remains a real connection with the Crown. That is why we want to make the continued use of the name conditional on a continued link with Her Majesty's Government, as spelled out in our new clause and schedule, through the requirement to adhere to the purpose and principles approved by Parliament and the requirement to seek parliamentary approval for any further transfer of ownership.
We do not want to see the good name of the Crown of the United Kingdom put up for sale to the highest bidder. We do not want to see that good name become a tradable commodity. Furthermore, we do not believe that it would be right for the Crown Agents to continue to call themselves such if they were to desert the developmental objectives and the non-profit constitution to which they are now dedicated in order to go into the private sector.
We therefore propose in the amendments that the name "Crown Agents" should be available to the successor company as long as it remains wholly owned by the Crown. It should be available to the foundation which we and the Minister have described, and to any subsidiary company, but it should not be available to any other buyer in the event that the foundation proposal does not come to fruition. It should not be available to any multinational conglomerate which might obtain the assets of the foundation at any future stage. It should continue in use only so long as the successor company and the foundation adhere to the purpose and principles which govern the work of the Crown Agents. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to support the amendments, the spirit of which is quite clear. However, I should like to ask one brief and specific question of the Government with regard to Amendment No. 5. At column 1410 of Hansard, the Minister said on Second Reading:
"We envisage that the foundation will be established as a company limited by guarantee".—[Official Report. 28/2/95; col. 1410]
I know that the amendments are broad in their aims, but I should like to ask the specific question: will the Government bring forward an amendment to add the words, "The successor company should be a company limited by guarantee"?
5 p.m.
Baroness Elles: In the light of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. As I read the Second Reading speech of my noble friend the Minister the way in which the structure would be set up and the relationship between the Government, the foundation and the operating company were clear. Will my noble friend confirm that for a considerable time the Government will be a shareholder in and a member of the foundation? Will the foundation he the sole shareholder in the operating company?

1343
I believe that all the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech and in the amendment were catered for by my noble friend when she explained the statutory framework.
Lord Judd: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she respond to the point that has been made? If the proposals are so evidently sensible, in the name of open government, why on earth not put them on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Elles: We have heard many speeches from many noble and learned Lords about the unreasonable length of endless Bills, statutory instruments and every kind of legal instrument. I believe that anything that can shorten a Bill, and taking the word of the Government as stated in this Chamber, is sufficient. I am all for as short a Bill as possible and I accept the word and undertakings of my noble friend on behalf of the Government.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I understand the Committee's anxiety to know more about the details of the proposed foundation. I explained on Second Reading that the foundation will be independent of government and that its members will not be appointed by Ministers. Therefore, the premise on which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, moved the amendment was not entirely right. I had made the point on Second Reading. I also said that the foundation will own all the shares in the company which will operate the Crown Agents' business. I further said that it is likely to take the form of a company limited by guarantee. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I do not see the need for an amendment on the matter.
I further said on Second Reading that the foundation will not distribute dividends to its members and that its objectives will encompass the social, ethical and developmental principles on which the Crown Agents' business is based. I went on to say that the members of the foundation will need to discuss and agree with government the terms of transfer of the business once Parliament has agreed to the arrangements set out in the Bill.
Since Second Reading we have received significant expressions of interest about the membership of the foundation. The Crown Agents board and I envisage that the core of the membership of the foundation will be a group of what I would term "enduring institutions". Those could include, for example, the British Consultants Bureau, the British and international chambers of commerce and various chartered institutes as well as a range of non-governmental organisations which are concerned with developing countries and overseas aid. There may also be a number of companies which have no conflict of interest with the Crown Agents' business. However, it is too soon to name individuals. In saying that, I am trying to give the noble Lord, Lord Rea, a feel of what has happened since Second Reading.
Although this is not, and will not be, a trade sale, it is essential to ensure that full confidentiality for Crown Agents' clients is maintained throughout the process of transfer and thereafter. It would be quite wrong and
1344
unfair for the Crown Agents foundation were that not to be so. However, I shall continue to provide information to the House as the Bill progresses and as more information comes forward. The proposed memorandum and articles of association will be made available to Parliament, as will the information memorandum which is to be provided for prospective members of the foundation.
We have already discussed why it is not appropriate to introduce an affirmative resolution procedure into the Bill. It is for essentially the same reason that putting the foundation on the face of the Bill is unnecessary and, I believe, the wrong approach. It would be unprecedented and would add nothing of substance to the Government's proposals.
There is, however, a new provision in the proposed new clause which I was surprised to see. Subsection (3) would have the effect of creating a new quango. It is a different situation for the Opposition to be proposing an amendment which creates a new quango. Therefore, I was most gratified to note the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has in the judgment of the Secretary of State in selecting foundation members. Of course, I tease, but it is worth teasing the noble Lord on that point.
That is not how the Government propose to proceed. I have said many times that this will be an independent foundation. I have greater confidence than the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in the integrity and judgment of the initial foundation members to organise themselves and to manage the Crown Agents' affairs without government intervention. But time will tell.
The noble Lord spoke also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. We agree that the Crown Agents' name is a most valuable asset and should be preserved for use by the ultimate owner of the successor company in the private sector. It is well known that it is our intention that this shall be a foundation. But the reasons why it is inappropriate to put the foundation on the face of the Bill in this way have been well rehearsed.
I have said that the foundation will be a company limited by guarantee. I also said that the memorandum and articles of association will commit the company to a clear social and developmental purpose. A few moments ago I said we would make those available to Parliament. Therefore, the foundation's membership will be entirely tied up on the basis of preserving the Crown Agents' developmental role.
I know that a number of Members of the Committee would like us to consider further the means to protect the nature of the foundation, including possible charitable status and government membership of the foundation. Were that to be so it would be only for a limited period of time.
The name "Crown Agents" does not necessarily imply a connection with the Government or the Crown, any more than having a nightly tipple at the Rose and Crown means that it has anything to do with someone called Rose or the Crown. The name "Crown Agents" embodies the traditional virtues of probity, impartiality and integrity, and is recognised worldwide. It is right that the name can be used by the ultimate owner of the successor company.

1345
I am at one with the noble Lord in having at heart the best interests of the Crown Agents. However, I hope that I can satisfy the Committee that the unique ethos of the Crown Agents will be preserved and enhanced by the route that the Government propose. Like my noble friend Baroness Elles, I do not believe that the provisions in Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are necessary in legislation of this kind.
Perhaps I may say with regard to Amendment No. 13 that it was very interesting to read the Opposition's thoughts about what should be in the memorandum and articles of association, as set out in the proposed new schedule. Certainly, that will give us food for thought. But in view of all that I said on Second Reading and with what I have wearied your Lordships today, I really do not believe that we need paragraph (a) because I have said already that there will be no distribution of dividends to shareholders.
That also links up with the question of how surpluses would be used. I made it clear on Second Reading that they will be used solely in pursuit of the social and developmental objectives of the foundation. Those will be drawn up tightly in the memorandum of association. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 13 is really not necessary.
It will be for the members of the foundation to make sure that the objectives of which we have spoken are strictly observed. But to give a little more comfort to the noble Lord opposite, I should tell him that it is our intention to ensure that the objectives cannot be changed for a period of perhaps five years. I am open to suggestions about the length of time but I believe that that is the right way to start off the Crown Agents foundation.
It will not surprise the Committee to know that the provisions of paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 13 are not acceptable because they go too far by proposing that the sale of the successor company should be subject to parliamentary control for an undefined period in the future. That really is a classic example of the nanny state at work. The reason for the Bill is to give Crown Agents more freedom to exercise their commercial judgment and not to provide more apron strings. I am certainly not going to agree that they should have more apron strings.
With regard to paragraph (d), the successor company and its subsidiaries will be required to pay over the surpluses to the foundation appropriately, and the foundation will distribute them in accordance with the objectives. Therefore, any surpluses will be distributed by the foundation, and not the successor company.
I realise that the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be disappointed but I do not believe that this group of amendments is necessary at all and I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord Rea: As always, the noble Baroness is very persuasive but she has not persuaded me or other Members on this side of the Committee that our amendments are not the way forward.
1346
It is not necessarily the intention that these amendments should be the final version of how the foundation should be described. They were put forward as an encouragement to the noble Baroness to come forward with what she believes to be better proposals which are more acceptable to the Government. In tabling the amendments, we were trying to demonstrate that these matters are not dealt with in the Bill as it stands.
When speaking to the first amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said—at least as we understood it—that the further elaboration of the Government's future intentions in that regard should come before Parliament. The passage of this Bill provides a golden opportunity for the Government to describe their future intentions either by agreeing to an amendment similar to that which we propose or by tabling their own amendments.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness is being logical when she describes what is to happen next but refuses to put that on the face of the Bill. She said that it is not intended to alter the objectives of the foundation for three years. But where do we see that on the face of the Bill? It may be that there will be a change and a less sympathetic Minister takes her place. That may mean that the Crown Agents will go in a very different direction indeed.
We shall not divide the Committee on this amendment. However, I ask the Minister earnestly to make proposals before Report stage so that we can have more than just a feel, as she said, for what is in her mind. We need to have evidence written on the face of the Bill which will provide some substance rather than statements which we have to take on trust. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Provisions with respect to capital structure]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. The purpose of these amendments is to obtain a clearer indication of the Government's intentions than is presently contained in the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will understand that on these Benches, we are not altogether convinced that there is a clear unanimity of view in the Government about the future of the Crown Agents. We believe that there are different schools of thought which are pursued quite actively. The Minister knows that we identify with her objectives. We have no doubts as to her good will and intentions. But we are worried about those who may not share those intentions. We beg her to see that everything for which we are arguing today aims to strengthen rather than undermine her position.
Our proposed amendments to Clause 2 remove all reference to Ministers imposing an assumed debt on the successor company. The Government are already claiming immediate repayment of the remainder of the

1347
debt which the Crown Agents assumed on their incorporation. We believe that Ministers should not saddle a new company with a further initial debt unless they can justify it and specify the sums involved at an early stage. This would be the appropriate time for them to do so.
Members of the Committee on all sides have already made clear their anxieties about the initial capital structure of the new company. They have also expressed deep anxieties about the security of the Crown Agents' staff and the pensions of past and present employees. When I re-read the Second Reading debate I was struck by the Minister's forceful proclamations of intention. One of the most moving and powerful passages in her remarks was about the courageous, loyal and outstanding service of Crown Agents' staff in the past. Therefore, that is not something that we should treat lightly. The anxiety which we wish to highlight in the amendments is in relation to the connection between pension funds and the capitalisation of the new company.
The most recent figures in the 1993 annual report value the assets of Crown Agents at just under £16 million. The same report gives the market value of the pension scheme's assets in March 1990 as nearly three times that figure; the surplus value today after pension liabilities are taken into account may be as much as twice the value of the Crown Agents themselves.
So we are bound to wonder which privatisation represents the greatest loss to the public purse, that of the Crown Agents' business or that of the Crown Agents' pension funds? I want to ask the Minister this direct question: is the provision for imposing an assumed debt intended to recoup the loss to the public purse of the value of the pension fund by extracting interest payments equivalent to the savings made by Crown Agents by virtue of their continuing pension contributions holiday? Indeed, if we want to give a fair wind to the enterprise in its new form—something in the interests of all parties—we must consider the implications of resources for necessary restructuring to meet the challenges ahead. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my question in her reply. I would ask the Committee to consider whether that amounts to funding privatisation of Crown Agents from the pensions surplus that rightly belongs to the past and present staff of Crown Agents, in spite of the tightening up of pensions rules currently being considered by Parliament.
At the end of the day, what matters is this: the financial viability of the Crown Agents if they are removed from the public sector. While I fully appreciate the tremendous work being done by Crown Agents and their capacity to make the most of fresh, commercial opportunities, I am not as sanguine as the Minister about the certainty of the business making great profits in the private sector at the same time as adhering to the social and developmental objectives which the Minister so rightly underlined. We should not saddle them with any extra debt burdens if we are to oblige them to venture on to the risky path of operating in the open market with a well-defined social purpose.
There is one other related point which the Minister may wish to address while we are considering the question of initial capitalisation. At present, part of the remit of the Crown Agents is to obtain the best possible deal for clients in the use of their funds. That is the attraction of working through them. It is no doubt why this highly efficient business returns only a very modest profit and would not break even at all without the benefit of the pension contributions holiday to which I referred.
How will that change the foundation that the Minister envisages? Will the foundation she intends to create still be free to obtain the best available return for itself, or will it be obliged to obtain the best possible deal for its clients? I suggest that it cannot do both. Will the purpose and principles to be enshrined in its constitution include a duty to make only sufficient profit to fund its ongoing work, or will it be free to maximise its profits at the expense of those governments and agencies that it currently serves?
The amendment I wish to move to Clause 3 removes subsection (2) which prohibits the Foreign Secretary from directing the successor company to issue securities in the company to him once the company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown. The intention of the amendment is to explore just how the Government intend to maintain reserve powers in the foundation for a five-year period after privatisation of the successor company.
The Minister said that that is the Government's intention in order to ensure that the foundation continues to adhere over that short period to its initial commitment to developmental purposes and principles. Indeed, the noble Baroness re-emphasised that point during today's deliberations. The most obvious formula for doing so is for the Secretary of State to hold some type of golden share in the foundation and to be able to increase his shareholding if the foundation strays from the agreed path. Yet the subsection that we are considering appears to rule out that option. If the Government's intention is not to hold a golden share and retain the option of increasing it, how will they exercise the reserve powers to which the Minister referred?
Again, I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point in her reply. In another context, bearing in mind the firm strictures of the scrutiny committee, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the Bill should not refer to the point at which the successor company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown without first spelling out the details of how that transfer of ownership is to be conducted. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7 which is really a probing amendment. I admit that the way the amendment is phrased would not suit legislation, but the aim is to raise a few questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In fact, all the amendments in the group deal with the debt that the Crown Agents will inherit. Before we reach the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, could the Minister give an indication of the amount of interest to be paid by the Crown Agents as part of their penalty for

1349
realising their debt too early? It is rather unusual that the Crown Agents, which are being put into the private sector by the Government, should then suffer a penalty clause for actually having to repay the loan; indeed, they have to do so by law. That is the aim behind the suggested removal of lines 16 to 18 in Clause 2.
The amendment also puts forward the question of how the Crown Agents will pay the outstanding debt to the Consolidated Loans Fund. Is it the Minister's intention that the pension contributions paid by the Crown Agents, which are now being used for restructuring the company (as regards the pension contributions holiday) should be used to pay off the outstanding debt to the loans fund?
Is it the Minister's intention—and this is the heart of the amendment—that the successor company to the Crown Agents should have a financially firm basis? Does the noble Baroness envisage that money will flow from the Crown Agents over a long period of time to the Treasury, as I believe will most likely happen, or, most unusually, will money actually flow from the Treasury to the Crown Agents to start it up? I return to the point that was raised earlier; namely, that we are dealing with a slightly strange enabling Bill. I believe that it is an unusual enabling Bill. We are privatising a company which will produce no dividends for shareholders.
I have one further question to ask the Minister which is raised by the amendment. The Minister mentioned that the holding company may have charitable status. Can he give some indication of whether the members of the foundation—that is, those who are now keen to become such members—would also be keen to become charitable trustees? I believe, although perhaps the Minister will be able to give me some indication in this respect, that charitable trustees should manage their money in the way that would give the best return on the assets of the charity. That could come into conflict with the set aims of the foundation. I realise that I have asked the Minister many questions. However, that was the purpose behind the amendment. Unless those questions are answered, I fear that we may have to bring forward many more amendments at the next stage to clarify the position.
5.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: I, too, wish to speak to Amendment No. 7. During the Second Reading debate I referred to the remarks of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who described the Bill as "privatisation to preserve", and extended them to describe it as privatisation to preserve and enhance. I believe that emphasises that this is a rather special form of privatisation.
The new body created will not be the property of private shareholders like British Telecom or British Airways, with full commercial freedom to go to the market to seek additional equity or funding, but a foundation—a company limited by guarantee—which will be unable to distribute profits or assets to guarantee members, but equally—I repeat and re-emphasise this—
1350
will have no access to further equity capital. That is why we must be so careful to ensure that the new body starts off with an adequate balance sheet to see it through the many uncertainties which will inevitably lie ahead.
It is my view, however—which I should like to urge upon my noble friend—that the Bill should not demand the repayment of the commencing capital debt but should reinforce the balance sheet of the new body by converting that debt into permanent capital. If early repayment of the outstanding debt is forced upon the new body, and if further debt is imposed upon it, then that would weaken the balance sheet significantly. In transferring the Crown Agents' activities to an independent foundation we are doing nothing to alter their fundamental nature and should therefore not expect any dramatic changes in the level of profitability that the new body is likely to achieve. In making these points I realise that the Treasury has a real responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
In any organisation the Treasury role is usually a difficult and an unpopular one. But the role of the Treasury is only one of the factors that we in Parliament must consider and support. Very often there are wider issues that must also be considered. It is therefore vital that we should ensure that the new body is born with financial muscle, in the tangible form of a strong balance sheet, to be commercially viable.
It was Walter Bagehot who said in the 19th century,
"The Crown is, according to the saying, the `Fountain of Honour': but the Treasury is the 'Spring of Business"".
If we can achieve a strong financial base for the new foundation I am sure that it will succeed. If not, we risk seeing our fledgling body swept away and destroyed early in its young life. I very much hope that commercial reality will overcome the problems of short-term expediency and that we shall finish up with a new foundation with the strength and financial viability to sustain itself for the years to come. May the Treasury act as a spring.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: This is an interesting debate. I hope that I can set at rest the fears, worries and conjecture of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I understand that he must probe these matters. However, I have made it quite clear on all occasions when we have discussed this—both privately and at Second Reading —how important the pension arrangements are to the Crown Agents' pensioners. I have told many who have asked that the past contribution made by the Crown Agents' pensioners is safe. The pension funds are held in trust and there is no way in which I believe there should be any reduction in the assets that are held by the trustees when the business transfers. What I think is perhaps being overlooked in the debate on these issues is that the Bill already provides for continuity of treatment of employment for pension purposes. That is most important and I am delighted that it is there on the face of the Bill. The Crown Agents have no plans to alter their present pension arrangements. The security of the trust-based schemes will be further protected by the provisions of the Pensions Bill which has now completed its passage through this Chamber.

1351
The other matter that the noble Lord was concerned about was the value of the pension surplus to the business in allowing a contributions holiday. Of course that will be taken into account in our decision to ensure value for money for the taxpayer from the transfer. But that does not mean that there will be some great raid on a pensions fund, as the noble Lord seemed to think. Of course he has at the back of his mind—as I well know from Second Reading and other exchanges—the situation that obtained towards the end of the 1970s before the Crown Agents Bill was made law in this country. Of course there were lessons that we learnt from that inappropriate capital structure. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Oxfuird that we are determined to give the new Crown Agents a fair start. That is most important. I would not be standing here today if I thought that this Bill would do anything different. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the Crown Agents should not begin their new life overburdened by debt. We want the new company to have the capacity to invest, to grow and to produce benefits for the foundation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I do not think that if the foundation decides to become a charity there would be any conflict of interest. We have already discussed the memorandum and articles of association that are likely to be those of the foundation, although they are not finalised yet, as the Committee is aware. But there is no way, given that the social and developmental purposes of this foundation will be written into the memorandum and articles, that that would be at variance with what charity trustees would expect from the foundation were it to be made a charity.
When looking at this question of dealing with debt, of course all governments have to consider questions of value for money for the taxpayer. But it would be premature to take a decision now on what the right balance would be. I certainly would not be in favour of enshrining this in legislation. As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, we want a strong balance sheet. We want to reinforce the position of the Crown Agents. Therefore I can see no worries such as have been alluded to by Members of the Committee in this short debate.
Certainly there are no arguments of principle as to why Crown Agents should not have debt in the balance sheet. Very few companies would be in that position. But the decision about all of this must really turn on the needs of the business. We are taking professional advice on this and indeed on the make-up of the new Crown Agents' capital. We shall certainly take the views of the current board fully into account in arriving at this decision. I think the Committee will have realised that the board has an influential voice already. Its members are certainly the closest to the business. While the Government as the owner would have to have the final say, there is no way that I shall not listen with the greatest of care to, and probably take the advice of, the Crown Agents.
A number of other detailed questions were asked. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in answer to his question about how the government would keep reserve powers, that in a sense he has misunderstood the clause. If it were thought necessary
1352
for there to be a golden share, it would be a government share in the foundation. The foundation is not dealt with in the Bill. The successor company is referred to in Clause 3; but that issue is not dealt with in detail. I shall look again at the point that the noble Lord made, and at my answer to him. I want to be sure that the foundation will have the right balance when it takes over from the Crown Agents. To make sure that that balance is right and the foundation gets a good start, we have to ensure that the issue is dealt with properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me some detailed questions. He asked what penalty there would be on the repayment of the National Loans Fund debt. I said at Second Reading that that would be at a fixed rate of interest. Certainly, the loan that remained in Crown Agents in 1989 was understood to be then and remains now at that fixed level of repayment. However, the actual amount will depend on the difference between the interest rate on Crown Agents' debt to the National Loans Fund and the National Loans Fund's lending rate on the day appointed for the vesting of the new company. Therefore I cannot be as definite as the noble Lord would like me to be at this point because I do not know when the vesting day will be. I shall not speculate on interest rate movements between now and the appointed day. However, I can say that if the vesting day was now, the penalty repayment would be approximately £200,000. I am advised that that is a rough indication of what the penalty would be.
I spoke at Second Reading about the possibility of charitable status. Nothing has changed since we discussed the issue at Second Reading. It is not a matter solely for the Government. It will be a matter for the foundation. I made that clear at that time. If the foundation wishes to seek registration as a charity, it must look very carefully at forms of regulation. That is a matter that we are looking into with advisers at present. However, nothing has changed since we last discussed the matter some weeks ago.
There are still plenty of answers to be sought. I shall certainly keep noble Lords advised on this particular issue as we proceed with the Bill.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord said something which struck me as strange. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I do not believe that we could transfer the successor company or find new owners in the form of a foundation unless it were financially viable in the broadest sense. That is why I can give the assurance that my noble friend Lord Oxfuird sought. However, that is not something for which one can legislate. I believe that on reflection noble Lords will understand that. Obviously, viability will depend on the efforts of the management in taking advantage of the new opportunities which the change of status offers. That is a matter on which we shall have further discussions between now and Report stage.
Regarding Amendment No. 9, I have already said in answer to earlier debates that the period of government ownership of the successor company will be limited. That is why, as we have already discussed, the Secretary of State needs special powers over the company in connection with the vesting which takes place on the appointed day. It is not right that those powers should

1353
continue longer than necessary for the simple purpose of setting up the opening balance sheet of the company in a way which matches the assets and liabilities of Crown Agents. Therefore, I do not believe that Amendment No. 9 is necessary in any sense.
I do not believe that the Government should retain ownership of the successor company. The setting up of the foundation is a means to an end. We have already been over the arguments earlier today, and we certainly did so at Second Reading.
Members of the Committee may wonder why I am unwilling to accept their amendments; but they have said that they are probing amendments. I believe that Amendment No. 9 is intended to give the Secretary of State special rights in the successor company, even when it is not wholly owned by the Crown. I am not sure what that would achieve or what it was intended that it should achieve. It is unlikely to be acceptable to the new owners such as the foundation, which will have a wide range of membership.
I hope that I have quietened the fears and answered the questions of the Committee. I shall consider again the comments made by Members of the Committee. However, I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are necessary. Amendment No. 8 is of course consequential on Amendment No. 6.
I repeat that we are determined to give the new Crown Agents a fair start and to give the foundation a good start in order to produce benefits for the work that it does in line with its social and developmental purpose. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not press his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Of course I am grateful for the characteristically considerate way in which the Minister responded to the amendments. At the risk of tedious repetition—although I do not believe that this is a matter on which we can be tedious—I say again that on this side of the Chamber we have no doubts about the intentions and good will of the Minister. We take at face value all that she says she wants to see the Crown Agents go on to achieve and the role she wants to see them fulfil. However, as I have said in other debates today, that is not the point. The point is that we are not discussing the Minister; we are discussing the Government and the arrangements that are laid down in legislation concerning the future of the Crown Agents.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points that have been raised in this interesting exchange. First, all the members of staff will be immensely reassured and will place great weight on the categoric assurance that their pension fund is safe and there is no question of it being interfered with in any way. That is certainly reassuring news for them, although it could be argued that that could not have happened anyway because of new legislation. It was good to hear the Minister emphasise that point.
On the question of the golden share and the foundation, I hope that the Minister will consider not only the discussion on this particular set of amendments
1354
but the discussion in general before Report stage. She is a very fair-minded person and will accept that there is at least some room for misunderstanding. There may be, however unintentional, some ambiguity about what she has said today. On the one hand, what she said today will be taken as an attempt on her part to reassure everyone that for the next five years the Government will keep a very firm controlling hand on the tiller, or at least will be ready to take the tiller, to ensure that matters are going in the direction intended. However, she seems to have said that that reassurance is regarding the successor company while arrangements are made for the foundation to take over. That is not quite the same message. From the Minister's other observations, people may have received the message that the Government are intending to ensure that those five years—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening but I wish to make sure that he and I understand exactly the same point.
My comment about the following five years concerns the fact that there should be no change in the memorandum and articles of the foundation—the objectives. That may be the area in which the Government should have that reserve, But I do not believe that any foundation would be terribly happy, having taken the successor company into the foundation, to have the Government watching over it at every turn. That would not be much better than the current situation which we seek to improve.
When we spoke of a five-year watching brief over the memorandum and articles of association of the foundation, or indeed the specific social and developmental objectives, that was the bottom line. I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to interfere with the work of the foundation, even though they may be one of the members of the foundation in the future. However, I shall consider carefully all our debates and make sure that that factor is clear beyond peradventure.
Lord Judd: I thank the Minister for that observation. However, perhaps I may ask again. It is always good for all of us to read what we said in Hansard, albeit somewhat inhibiting. However, to read what she said will increase anxiety. She states, on the one hand, this and, on the other hand, that. She states that, on the one hand, the Government will keep an eye on things and make sure that everything goes the intended way for at least five years; but, on the other hand, the Government are anxious not to spell out or reveal any specific arrangements to ensure that that is so. We who are unashamedly doubting Thomases want not only to hear the intention but to see the mechanism that will be available. The Minister has said nothing that has reassured us on that.
Regarding the pension fund and the contributions holiday, the Minister skirted round a problem which causes anxiety. In my informal contacts with Crown Agents, I find it interesting that at all levels of senior management and staff there is a shared view that they want a strong future together. There seems to be an enlightened, shared view that one of the advantages of the contributions holiday is that resources were available

1355
which could put the enterprise in a strong position to face the future with regard to finance, necessary restructuring, and so on. The anxiety is that any undue financial obligations which the new arrangements inherit will be at the expense of such essential operation. Therefore it is important for the Crown Agents—I am sure that the Minister will consider the issue; I hope that she will come back with convincing observations at Report stage—to have strong reassurance on that point. I detect that there is real anxiety on that score.
My last point relates to the issue of charitable status. The Minister said today that that would be up to the foundation to decide. I am sure that the Committee realises that that factor is central to what disturbs us. There is a big difference between being a charity and not being a charity. If we wish to know what we are making possible for the future of the Crown Agents, this is the time at which we should be clear as to whether the body will be a charity. It has tremendous bearing on what we do now.
To state that the Government will have available a guiding hand on the tiller if things begin to go off course but also that it will be up to the foundation to decide whether it will be a charity seems to be having all things all ways. Some clarification on the point at Report stage will be immensely helpful.
I conclude by saying that it is always good to have exchanges with the Minister. I enjoy them more when they relate to issues on which we broadly see eye to eye—the challenges of humanitarian assistance and development, and so on. I find it uncomfortable when I am not reassured by the position that she takes. In a complex way, I find myself more uncomfortable because I am usually reassured by her. In the exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the Minister, I felt that the strange element in the relationship was that she was very persuasive yet she did not persuade. It was an interesting contrast between style and substance. That aspect slightly worries us on this side of the House. We hope that we can help to persuade the Minister by putting forward arguments and suggestions regarding arrangements which underwrite the observations that she makes.
I hope that some way down the road we shall not be saying, "Here we are with another Minister and a foundation that we did not envisage in those exchanges in March 1995. And if only we and the Minister, who shared so much, had at that stage buttoned up the position, we would not be in this situation". I hope that we shall not face such a predicament.
I have heard what the Minister said; we shall consider it hard. I hope that she will consider carefully what we said. We may return to some of the issues at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Initial Government holding in the successor company]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Use of "Crown Agents" as part of company name]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act,
South Africa Act.

Sugar Regime: Select Committee Report
6 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Reform of the EC Sugar Regime (Fourth Report, HL Paper 28).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the sugar regime within the common agricultural policy remains virtually unchanged since it was introduced 27 years ago. The reforms which are considered in our report are those proposed by the Commission and, as drafted, will have the effect only of ensuring that the Community can perform its obligations under the GATT agreement. The proposals were not finalised until late November last year and the Council has given them only preliminary consideration. Sub-committee D's inquiry was carried out so that our report on the regime and on the reform proposals could be made before decisions were taken in Council.
During our inquiry we had the advantage of the expert assistance of Mr. Ian Sturgess of the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge, as our specialist adviser. Our thanks are due to the many witnesses who gave evidence, both oral and written, and I am grateful for the highly professional work of our Clerk, Mr. Mitchell, and for the support of my colleagues.
It will be apparent from our conclusions that we consider the Commission's proposals to be inadequate. The regime is overdue for reform, with or without the GATT agreement. The fact that these GATT-driven proposed changes are the minimum necessary demonstrates once again the painfully slow path towards CAP reform being taken by the Community.
The details of the existing sugar regime are quite complicated and are set out in Part 2 of the report. The main features are: price setting, import levies, production quotas and export refunds. Sugar within the Community is produced from beet grown under a system of national quotas. Annual output of white sugar under the system is about 16.2 million tonnes. In the UK production and marketing are organised by British Sugar, which allocates the national quota among growers and owns the refineries. The regime also undertakes under the Sugar Protocol of the Lomé Convention to buy and import, levy free and at a guaranteed price, about 1.3 million tonnes of raw cane sugar from certain African, Caribbean and Pacific states and India. About 85 per cent. of the ACP quota is refined in the UK by Tate & Lyle.
Under the regime, market prices are supported by intervention prices which are set both for raw cane sugar and for white beet sugar at a level normally well above world prices. Intervention prices are maintained by export restitutions.
Surplus sugar in the Community has not been stored, thereby creating extensive sugar mountains, but it has been dumped onto the world market at prices subsidised by the producers themselves by means of levies. The regime is therefore considered to have been budget-neutral, which explains the lack of pressure for reform in contrast to that on the other CAP regulated commodities, such as milk, beef, grain, oil and protein Crops.
There is something to be said for a system which makes relatively small demands on the Community budget, which has guaranteed a regular supply to consumers, which has made the sugar beet crop one of the most profitable for growers and which has maintained a stable and prosperous countryside in many parts of the Community.
In the UK both beet growing and processing have become very efficient and productive in recent years. Much money has been invested in the beet industry and employment created, both directly and in the ancillary industries.
Raw cane sugar imports have provided an assured market to certain third world countries whose economies might collapse without that outlet. Where we have a high level of investment in a thriving and efficient industry—as is certainly the case in the UK—we must have very good reasons for recommending policies which might upset a complex industrial structure. We have therefore to look at the effect of the present sugar regime.
First, the quota allocation has been more than generous, so that, with the exception of Portugal and the UK, all member states have quotas which meet or exceed the amount they consume. Taking account of cane imports, the Community currently produces some 17.8 million tonnes of which it consumes 11.9 million tonnes. The balance of 5.9 million tonnes is for export, the greater part of which is subsidised. This dumping amounts to more than 25 per cent. of the whole of the world free market in sugar.
Secondly, over-production and subsidised exports from the Community have a depressing effect on the world sugar market. Estimates vary between a 5 per cent. and a 20 per cent. lowering effect on world prices, which is not helpful to the economies of cane sugar-producing countries outside the Lomé Convention.
Thirdly, sugar quotas are handed out to member states irrespective of whether they are geologically or climatically suited to beet growing. Despite national grant aids, Italy and Spain can barely meet their national quotas. So the system does little to encourage efficient production.
Fourthly, the EU intervention price for sugar over the past 15 years has on average been about double the world price. Consumers in the Community therefore pay very dearly for stable prices and secure supplies. For industrial sugar users, high input prices mean reduced competitiveness.
Fifthly, the Community's beet price paid to producers has to be high enough to pay for levies which go to pay for the export restitutions. In effect, therefore, it is the consumers who pay ultimately for the over-production and subsequent dumping on the world market.
Sixthly, it is arguable whether it is beneficial in the long run by such means as the Lomé Convention artificially to stimulate production in the ACP countries, thereby locking them into cane growing and making them economically dependent on one crop.
Lastly, enlargement of the EU to include the central and eastern European countries is high on the Community's agenda. In our October debate on our report on trade with eastern Europe it was clear that any strategy for enlargement that was not based on thorough reform of the CAP would be futile. It would be quite unrealistic to suppose that the EU's current sugar regime, even modified by the proposals under review, could be extended to cover the large potential beet production in Eastern Europe.
For all those reasons, there is a powerful case for reform of the sugar regime. The questions, therefore, are: how far do the Commission's proposals satisfy the Community's obligations under GATT? How far do they go to achieve the kind of radical reform that we have so often called for, now and in the past? Our report concludes that the answer to the first question is: most of the way; the answer to the second is: not at all.
The 1994 GATT agreement on agriculture covers the period 1995 to 2000 and does not challenge the system of quotas and guaranteed prices. The Community's obligations under the agreement fall under three headings: domestic support; market access; and export competition. Under all these headings the obligations are already met, or will be met, without difficulty.
However, the GATT requirement that the present variable import levy will be replaced by a tariff, to be reduced over five years, will have the effect of drawing the EU sugar market more closely to the world market. This could mean that, towards the year 2000, some Community countries will be obliged to import, or the Community will have to reduce its support prices. The Commission proposes that provision should be made to

1359
enable beet quota levels to be reduced year by year to stay within the GATT commitments. But annual adjustments will not provide a sound base for long-term investment in the industry.
In addition, the proposals are that storage payments on what is known as C sugar should be discontinued; that preferential imports of raw cane sugar to Community refineries should be guaranteed; and, lastly, that national aids to the beet sector in Spain, Germany and north Italy should be phased out while allowing a 50 per cent. reduction only for the rest of Italy.
We conclude that, while we endorse the last three of the Commission's proposals—except for the concession to Italy—we take the view that the proposals, as a package, amount to no more than minor modifications to the existing regime. They amount to the bare minimum that is necessary to perform the EU's GATT obligations up to the year 2000. The opportunity to reform the sugar regime has not been seized. As we say in Part 5 of the report, which summarises the opinion of the committee, by continuing to insulate prices within the EU from the forces of the world market, the regime is a major source of instability in world prices. The quota reductions proposed by the Commission will not come near the 20 per cent. reduction, which would still leave the EU self-sufficient in sugar. There are no specific proposals for a reduction in export subsidies, and no concessions are made to the increasing demand for sugar substitutes.
Most importantly, consumer interests appear to be totally disregarded and the challenge presented by the future accession of the CEE countries is ignored. As we say at the end of our report, the adverse effects of the sugar regime on consumers and users, on world trade and on economic efficiency should be tackled by phased price cuts and with, where appropriate, phased compensation to growers. Substantial cuts should be made in the quotas, so as to penalise high-cost production, and they should be planned now, before they become inevitable. We also put forward the suggestion that, while a quota system persists, serious consideration should be given to mechanisms for making the quotas tradable among growers of sugar beet.
I am sorry to end on a rather sour note, by saying that my committee found the Commission's arguments for justifying inertia to be unconvincing and unsubstantiated. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Reform of the EC Sugar Regime (Fourth Report, HL Paper 28).—(Lord Middleton.)
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for so clearly introducing the report and for so clearly explaining the problem that the European Community sugar policy presents both to other producers in the world and to its own consumers. I have to declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate & Confectionery Alliance, which in its turn advises me and
1360
which is a leading member of the United Kingdom Industrial Sugar Users Group, which gave important evidence to Sub-committee D.
It was my privilege to be a member of that sub-committee from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. During that time one of our important reports was on EC sugar policy, in March 1980. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is to speak later, because he was also a member of that sub-committee at the time in question. This time I hope that the noble Lord agrees with much of what I have to say.
Our recommendations at that time, which included a reduction in prices and a reduction in production, were very similar to those of today-15 years later. In 1980, the Community was also castigated for a deliberate policy of high prices towards other sugar exporters, which it was stated appeared to be one of selfishness and cynicism. My noble friend Lord Middleton did not actually use those words, but much of what he said would endorse that earlier report. Indeed, that is reflected in paragraph 75 of the report that we are now debating.
Turning to the report, it is particularly worth noting the written part of the Tate & Lyle evidence on pages 34 and 35 of the Minutes of Evidence. It commits it, on the public record, to favouring a market-oriented reform of the regime and defines the way in which it believes such a reform can be achieved without damaging its competitive position. Clearly Tate & Lyle would not say that if it thought that the reform would adversely affect the market for ACP sugar producers.
On another point, I understand that it is suggested that the users are benefiting by the price stability that is provided by the regime. The UK (UKISUG) representatives gave very effective answers to that in answering questions Nos. 190 to 197 on pages 58 and 59 of the Minutes of Evidence.
The sub-committee's conclusions are eminently sensible, and are consistent with a long series of reports on sugar in the Community by the Court of Auditors; in academic studies by Professor Tangermann and Professor Marsh; earlier opinions of the European Parliament; and the last UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, to name but a few. The real problem is to discover how we convert such a mass of common sense into something which is politically practicable.
The weight of lobbying on behalf of the status quo is indeed impressive. Clearly, the very facts that only 4 per cent. of arable farmers have a sugar quota and that having such a quota is so profitable mean that there are very prosperous farmers sharing and defending the privileged position that the regime provides for them. A number of the major European beet sugar processors are farmers' co-operatives—most notably, SudZucker, which owns Sucreries Tirlemont, as well as over a third of German production, and has been vertically integrating by buying German sugar, confectionery and ice-cream manufacturers. Such firms are unlikely to take a political line that would discomfit their members. Having said that, however, it is surprising that the other 96 per cent. of arable farmers are not vigorously demanding their share of this bonanza.

1361
Similarly, it is surprising that countries that would gain substantially from liberalisation, such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, have been so complacent. Clearly, if farmers had property rights in their quotas and could sell these across national boundaries, as the sub-committee proposes, these countries and the UK would tend to accrue more quota since they are the sensible places to grow sugar beet in the European Union, and their farming industries are, in general, appropriately capitalised and have appropriately sized farms. One has to wonder at their reluctance actively to seek reform. Your Lordships may know that the Budget Committee of the European Parliament is seeking to include, in its Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, in the parliament's Agricultural Committee's opinion a proposal that the new regime should be for two years rather than for six years. I suggest that this is an excellent opportunity to keep the campaign for sugar reform going.
I strongly support that proposal. It would indeed be helpful if Her Majesty's Government were to agree to take up this point if and when the parliament carries it. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether our Government will take any action to support those amendments of the European Parliament and have plans for action thereafter?
In conclusion, I congratulate the Select Committee and its Sub-committee D on once again providing an excellent report. Above all, I pray—and I mean that I pray, because there does not seem to be any other way of achieving it—that the summary in paragraph 80 of the report becomes a reality well before the end of this century.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I also should like to be associated with previous remarks in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee. Sugar is an important subject. There are many interested parties to the regime, not least Tate & Lyle. But I believe that the committee and the Minister understand their position. The committee accepted a written submission from the ACP London Sugar Group but did not examine the ACP issues in any great detail. I regret that. I believe that it might be helpful to address the concerns of ACP sugar producers. I am chairman of the Lomé Parliamentary Group and am committed to the welfare of our friends in the developing world.
Sugar producers are often responsible for the greater part of the foreign currency earnings of their countries. I need not remind your Lordships that those nations in most cases do not have a lot going for them in terms of revenues. We in Europe, as good citizens of the world, must ensure that equitable arrangements are entered into. Life can be hard when earnings from sugar are affected. If we abuse the trading advantage, it will come back to haunt the United Kingdom and our European partners.
There are two key issues with the ACP: agree additional quantities and determine what minimum price will be paid. However, price is the real issue. The
1362
European Union needs as much ACP sugar as possible but seeks to acquire those additional quantities at what may be unrealistic rates. In ACP countries there is a clear need for stable export earnings, which in any case have been substantially eroded since 1986. New arrangements are overdue. I urge HMG to use their all within Community institutions to secure additional access for the ACP at the full domestic rate. The UK is by far the most important market for ACP sugar, although France, Finland and Portugal are also significant customers.
It is appropriate to remind your Lordships that the protocol was signed when world market prices were between two or three times higher than today's equivalent. The protocol clearly states that:
"the Community would undertake for an indefinite period to purchase and import specific quantities of cane sugar which originate in the ACP states and which these states undertake to deliver, at a price within the range of prices applicable within the Community".
The sugar protocol is about trade, not aid. It is an equitable trade instrument based on a long-standing mutual interdependence between ACP suppliers, the cane sugar refiners and European consumers. I submit that the price at which sugar is traded under the protocol is not a "privileged price", as the report concluded. It is based on the same price as we afford to our own farmers. Indeed, the amount is less because the price of sugar in the Community is ex-factory for EU producers, including the French overseas departments.
A key consideration is that ACP producers have to bear the costs of inland and ocean freight in transporting the sugar to the European markets. The socio-economic importance of the sugar protocol to the ACP sugar producers is immense. The sugar industry directly employs 35 per cent. of the active working population in Swaziland, 14 per cent. in Mauritius and more than 12 per cent. in Fiji. Sugar accounts for 97 per cent. of agricultural export earnings in Barbados, 98 per cent. in Fiji and 74 per cent. in Swaziland; and the sugar industry represents 30 per cent. of the total GDP of Guyana.
The report concluded that it is not in the long-term interests of the ACP to put all their eggs in one sugar basket. The ACP sugar industries understand that and continue to explore further possibilities for diversification. However, nothing is as suitable as growing sugar cane in the fragile ecosystems of the ACP countries.
European consumers pay a fair price for sugar and European taxpayers pay a relatively small and, more importantly, a very stable amount of money to run the policy. The total quantity agreed under the sugar protocol has not changed since 1974, although the refiners' needs have increased. There now exists in the EU a sizeable deficit of raw cane sugar for refining, mainly in Portugal. Since 1984 the ACP have asked that the import arrangements for Portugal, especially as regards the four traditional ACP suppliers to the Portuguese market, be included in the sugar protocol or a similar arrangement. But to date, despite repeated

1363
requests and joint declarations, the arrangements for Portugal have remained, in the vernacular, "transitional".
The ACP is not seeking to supply additional sugar for which there is no market or no need. The need has been clearly identified in the four refining member states, as explained in the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, we should recognise that the ACP is not trying to elbow aside domestic sugar production. It has only asked to supply what cannot be produced domestically, including the raw cane sugar produced in French overseas departments, although there is no doubt that the ACP states have more than enough sugar available fully to meet the required amount. There is now a very great advantage in GATT for European sugarbeet growers and processors to import as much ACP sugar as possible. The Minister will be aware of the technical reasons for that, arising from the agreements reached during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Just as the EU needs ACP sugar, there is a clear need in those countries for a stable level of export earnings from sugar, and those earnings have been eroded substantially since 1986. The new arrangements are now well overdue. I urge HMG to use the full weight of their power within the Community institutions to secure the additional access for the ACP at the full domestic price.
To conclude, I have two questions for the Minister. I have not given advance warning; so I would, of course, accept a written reply, although an answer now would be helpful. First, what is the criteria that the Commission will adopt in setting the price for the additional quantities? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that compensation will be paid to ACP sugar cane producers and associated industries if the Commission, in line with HMG policy, cuts sugar prices by 12 per cent. in the next three years?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I strongly commend the report to anyone who happens to require an introduction to the arcane subject of the European Community's sugar regime. It provides a lucid exposition of the matter, which owes much to the masterly grasp of the subject possessed by our specialist adviser, Mr. Sturgess, of the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge University.
The European Community's sugar policy is one—I was going to say of hideous complexity; but in fact it possesses a certain beauty, so intricate is it; so balanced between so many interests; so discreet in its operation and so expensive in the elements from which it is constructed. As one discovers this extraordinary bureaucratic artefact, like some antique clock still in working order, one is tempted to say, "If it works, why fix it?" But, like an antique clock, while it can with loving care and expensive maintenance be made to function, cheaper and more efficient alternatives are today available.
In an era of CAP reform and of pressures for further reform, the European Community's sugar regime is an anomaly. Sugar has already become much more profitable than other crops, at the consumers' expense,
1364
with farmers, we heard, queueing up to apply for quota. The European Community consumer pays twice the world price for sugar and perhaps two-thirds above what he or she would pay if European Community and world prices were allowed to find their natural relationship. Such an expensive regime at once provokes competition and requires it to be suppressed. Import levies keep out imports. The development of alternative sweeteners is precluded by extending the quota regime. That is a particularly pernicious, even obscurantist, development, which prevents the consumer from benefiting from trends towards substitutes—perhaps healthier substitutes—and penalises European Community manufacturers in world markets. It is indeed one of the mysteries of the regime that it attracts so little odium.
As our report shows, despite sometime claims by the regime's protagonists that it is budget neutral, in fact it costs the budget around 1 billion ecu per year. But the bulk of the costs—including the costs of the export refund levy raised on B quota producers—are met by the consumer, not the taxpayer, as my noble friend Lord Middleton explained. Community sugar exports, of which over half are subsidised, now account for about a quarter of the world market. That depresses the world price and hence the incomes of farmers in other parts of the world, in particular developing countries, including ACP producers.
The solution to that waste of resources is a gradual reduction in support prices. If that were carried far enough the need for quotas would disappear. That is the route the Government would like to go down and I hope that they will not be pushed into abandoning that course prematurely because of insufficient support in the Council at the outset. The Commission proposes quota reductions as and when required to enable the Community to meet its agreed GATT commitments. As the government letter of response to the report notes,
"a mechanism which would distribute quota cuts fairly and rationally between member states is very difficult to devise".
There are in fact strong arguments for excluding the United Kingdom from the first round of quota cuts. The UK is one of the few member states whose B quota is set as low as 10 per cent. of its A quota, yet whose beet sugar industry's efficiency, measured by yield, is today among the top four in the Community. But to demand exemption when sacrifices all round are being sought is of course not an easy diplomatic task. Moreover, Tate & Lyle, who would much prefer, I understand, an unregulated market in which cane was able to compete freely with beet, is adamant that the Commission's proposals unfairly penalise cane at the expense of beet and threaten cane refiners' supplies. The Government will need to press that case too.
Where I do not entirely go along with the committee is in the hopes it pins on making quotas transferable. I have objections on two grounds. First, by creating capital value, it would reinforce a vested interest. Secondly, I doubt that it is politically practicable. It would be a major innovation to allocate quotas to farmers rather than, as at present, to member states and, through member states, to processors. And I have difficulty in seeing governments agreeing to the sale of quotas across member states' boundaries; yet only if

1365
such transnational transfers are allowed can any serious improvement in efficiency be attained. It is between member states that levels of efficiency vary dramatically, not within member states. Within member states, processors must to some extent be free to offer quotas to the more efficient farmers. I should welcome the Minister's views on that subject, in particular his opinion on whether internationally tradeable quotas are feasible or even in what, or any, circumstances in his view desirable. I shall also listen closely to what my noble friend Lord Marlesford says, who, judging by the forceful case he put in committee, is likely to disagree with what I say.
The committee and the Government are, I believe, right to be much disappointed with the Commission's proposals. As the Government said in their reply,
"inertia will send the wrong signals to producers",
and,
"do nothing to pave the way for the changes that the accession of Central and East European States would require".
Or, as the committee put it in paragraph 61,
"The next 3-4 years offer a breathing space but unless the Community takes advantage of this by anticipating change it will again be defending a highly protective regime against further demands for liberalization".
The Government have a right to be proud of the role that they played in securing the reforms in the CAP which have already been achieved. I am inclined to agree with what the Minister of Agriculture said earlier this week in another place when he suggested that the supertanker (the CAP) has begun very slowly to respond to a change in course. But, as the Government are the first to recognise, nothing like enough has been achieved. The Government must persevere on all fronts, all guns blazing. They have right firmly on their side; and history; and Sub-Committee D.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, sugar is no novice to political controversy. I believe that Benjamin Disraeli, early in his career, once started a speech in another place with the words, "Sugar, Mr. Speaker", and was howled down and unable to continue. When I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, with his most fluent advocacy of the cause of the cane sugar producers, I remembered reading not so many years ago that wonderful history of the Caribbean by Dr. Eric Williams in which he describes how the cane sugar lobby—the West Indies sugar lobby—was the strongest lobby there had ever been in the House of Commons, much stronger than the National Union of Mineworkers ever became. He also advises us that he discovered that in the early part of the 19th century, when the German chemists were working on the possibility of beet replacing cane as an economic source, the sugar lobby, pace the British Government, tried to bribe the German chemists to falsify their results. History tells us that it was an offer that was contemptuously discarded—obviously not an efficient effort at bribery.
Now we are faced with looking once again at a part of the common agricultural policy, and once again we are reminded that in so many ways the CAP is, as the
1366
Chinese once said of Hong Kong, a problem left over from history. There is a tremendous reluctance, as Marx used to teach us, that anyone should ever disturb a cosy status quo which they have enjoyed or are enjoying. What we have tried in an extremely modest way to do is to look a little bit at changes which may be able to be made.
I do not think there is ever any point in trying to reform the CAP by saying what it ought to be. We must always start from where it is and see whether we can, step by step, make some marginal improvements to it. I should like to focus—in this, my noble friend Lord Reay will not be surprised, although I hope that he will not be disappointed by what I say—on the recommendations in paragraph 78 of the sub-committee's report, which proposes that while sugar beet quotas exist they should be the transferable property of growers. That point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Middleton at the end of his speech and also by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I felt with some approval. I shall take a few moments to put to your Lordships, and particularly to my noble friend the Minister, a little of the thinking, of some of us at least, behind the objective.
Presumably, one of the prime objects of CAP reform must be to reduce the cost of that policy to the consumer and to the taxpayer. That must mean that agriculture should be as efficient as possible, which means that subsidies through support prices should be as low as possible. That must mean that gradually the higher cost producers, and therefore those who are least efficient, should give way to the lower cost producers and those who are more efficient. Obviously—this is the basis of the CAP—that must involve a fair deal for the less efficient producers; those who might lose out. They must be compensated. Indeed, the whole CAP is based on compensating people, largely by letting them continue to do things that it is not economic for them to do.
If one starts from the proposition that what we do not want is further burdens on the taxpayer and the consumer, it is obvious that that compensation should not come directly from the taxpayer or the consumer. It should come from the more efficient producers. That is why I should like to see a system set up whereby the efficient producers paid the less efficient producers for selling them the right to produce. The great precedent for this, where it has worked really well, is in the case of milk quotas in this country.
Milk quotas were created from nothing when it was decided that it was necessary to limit milk production. Perhaps here I should declare an interest because, although I am a farmer who does not grow sugar beet, I am a farmer who produces milk. Milk quotas were created from nothing. They are an asset of considerable financial magnitude. Often the value of the milk quota is greater than the value of the land. An economist would ask the question—I would not presume to answer it: I wish the noble Lord, Lord Peston, were here to do so, but there are probably other noble Lords who can—who has actually created that financial asset; from whose pocket has it come? I would suggest that it is the same as the story of the Englishman who goes on holiday to a remote island where he is much esteemed.

1367
By the end of his holiday he writes a cheque to pay for everything that he has enjoyed. The cheque is treasured and passed from hand to hand but never cashed. The question is, "Who paid for the Englishman's holiday?" The answer is that no one pays. It is a very efficient way of creating an asset as a means of getting greater economic efficiency. Of course, had milk quotas been produced and not been made transferable, production would have been frozen into an inefficient and undesirable pattern. So transferability and tradability were absolutely crucial. The system has worked well.
We have already had a response from my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to the sub-committee's report. It was a little lukewarm to our proposal for transferability of sugar beet quotas. First, there is a vested interest. Currently, the sugar beet quotas are effectively the property of the sugar producers. It is they who allocate to the farmers the right to produce sugar. It is not something which is of any particular value to them at the moment but they have a relatively arbitrary right, although in practice it continues to go to those who occupy that piece of land, to decide who produces sugar. I would suggest that it is perfectly practical to transfer that right, without disadvantaging the sugar refiners, to the sugar beet growers.
My right honourable friend said:
"there is nothing in the existing Community rules to prevent a sugar processor, subject to any agreement he may have concluded with growers, from allocating contracts in such a way as to maximize efficiency".
That suggests—perhaps my noble friend will enlighten us—that it would be technically feasible and would not be against Community rules to do it. My right honourable friend the Minister also said:
"To negotiate the necessary change in Community rules on quota allocation would obviously be difficult".
That is a challenge to the Government: any reform of the CAP is axiomatically difficult, My right honourable friend went on to make the following comment. This is a little more depressing. I have such high regard for my right honourable friend. It is so uncharacteristic that I almost wonder whether he wrote the words himself. He said:
"Even if there were a prospect of achieving it, we incline to the view that assigning quotas to growers instead of (or in addition to) processors might increase the difficulty of doing so. It might also make more difficult the eventual abolition of the quota system, if that seemed obtainable at some future date".
That is a statement where the ideal is seen as the enemy of the practical. It is saying: how should the sugar regime —how should the CAP even—be reformed overall?—and do not let us take any step which might possibly hazard that. That is not an approach to reform. I am saying that the more efficient we can make agricultural production within the CAP the lower, by definition, the price we have to pay to the producers and the lower, therefore, the subsidy; and in many cases the better it will be for the noble Viscount and his interest.
1368
I conclude by saying that I hope that the Government will take this seriously and perhaps move on to discussing the matter at least with their colleagues in Europe.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have enjoyed the debate, or parts of it, so far. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He talked a certain amount of sense. I should like to open my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on his report. It bears all the signs of his long experience; the old fox—I beg his pardon—the old hand at work, taking in the practicalities of the political position, which is essential.
I take a slightly different standpoint from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has been advocating for years the rights of that wonderful, altruistic body, the manufacturers of biscuits and anything which uses sugar. To hear him speak, one would think that farmers were the most appalling profiteers, rolling in luxury, while the poor manufacturers were having a terrible time doing their duty—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, not all; 4 per cent. of them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, however, I believe that the original purpose of the CAP was right and proper. It provided a degree of security in order to secure the production that we needed for food security in the European Community, as it was then. What has happened is that as time has gone by the market has been forgotten. I believe in the market, but I also believe in some form of protection for the primary producer who normally cannot organise himself in the way that the manufacturer and the buyer of his produce can. What has been wrong is that, as the European Community has grown, the economic facts have been ignored and for political reasons time and again agriculture Ministers have ignored the advice of the Commission and put up prices to a level where we have production on a scale which has done great harm to the producers in New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere.
I still believe in protection for primary producers, but in a sensible way and not in the way it has gone on in the European Union to date. We are now in a position where something must be done about it because of the GATT reforms and the enormous cost of paying the large subsidies required.
We have also got into a situation where the social effects of removing subsidies altogether would be devastating in many areas. To that end, the report has very sensibly advocated that compensation be paid where that is going to occur. I believe that farmers in this country have a very good case for holding on to the quota they have. We have to make the quota system work. That means a constant effort by Her Majesty's Government and other sensible people to get the quota cut to a size where we no longer export subsidised sugar onto the market. Twenty five per cent. of world trade comes from the European Community and, as has been

1369
said already, that has done great harm to the ACP countries and developing countries producing sugar. The system can be made to work to a degree.
We should not forget that sugar beet is a very useful crop. It did more to transform the county of Norfolk, of which I know a little, than any other crop. It has all the virtues of going down deep and aerating the soil. It is only a part of a rotation. It cannot take up the major part of anyone's land. In that regard, talk from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of sugar beet farmers revelling in wealth is a little out of place. To compare sugar beet with winter wheat, as the Ministry does here, is quite wrong. There is nothing easier to grow that winter wheat. One sows it and sprays it and then the great combine lashes into it and it is taken away. It is one of the most mechanised and easy crops to grow. One can use a large proportion of one's land for winter wheat. It can be grown as a single crop quite successfully.
Sugar beet is an entirely different thing. It is a major consumer of labour. There are costs of every kind. Sugar beet has to be dug up in appalling weather. It has to be taken to the roadside and loaded. One has to hold up the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when he wants to go to the station. It is a different crop with a different concentration altogether to winter wheat. It is ludicrous to show in a table how much more profitable it is to grow beet than winter wheat. Of course, it is more profitable.
If one wants to take it to a ridiculous level one should consider the strawberry grower. In a good year he can take in something like £5,000 to £10,000 a acre. That is more profitable than growing winter wheat. Therefore, I do not believe that that particular argument washes.
The other point concerns crying over the poor consumer. I know that if one takes each item and says that it is only a small part of the budget one comes to a ridiculous point. But in fact in Britain, according to the table, the price of sugar to the consumer in American cents is 42.64. In all the other EU countries it appears to be more, but it is only half of what it is in Tokyo and less than what it is in Washington DC, where it is 43.09 cents compared with 42.64 cents in London.
Sugar appears to be very cheap in developing countries and in Brasilia which grows a lot of cane sugar. When it comes to the manufacturers screaming about price, as they do frequently, the fact is that if one takes any object in the shops nowadays and looks at what sum goes to the farmer as a proportion of the price, it is immensely small.
Taking all these factors into account, the Government should be doing their absolute best to see that the total quota ABC—it is a ridiculous computation, although I know the difference between ABC—in this country is held on to. It fulfils the objectives put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, because it is competently produced and is doing a good job for this country. When one looks at the proportions in the other table, one can see that, apart from Portugal, this country produces less from the consumption of sugar than any other country in the EU. I hope that there will be a hard fight by the Government on that point.
1370
I must take up the point of saleable quotas. They have distorted the position in potatoes and milk in quite an extraordinary manner. What the noble Lord said about the quota being worth more than the land is true in many cases. We appear to have got into a ridiculous position. It is true that if we had tradable quotas throughout the whole Community they would end up where the most efficient farmers and processors are. It would also be very difficult for the processor because one cannot buy a quota to grow sugar beet unless the processor in that area is willing to take it. So one really cannot have the same freedom as one has with milk, because milk can be produced and plenty of people are willing to buy it.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He is absolutely right. That is one of the factors which determines the price of the quota and who will buy it. Nobody would buy a quota if they were not able either to grow the crop efficiently or to deliver it. As I have said, that can determine the price of the quota. It is economic market forces at work.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I accept that. Nobody will buy a quota at a peak price if their local factory will not process the product. The opportunity for farmers in Scotland to grow beet was removed. That could have been done with great efficiency in the east of Scotland, but the factory was taken away from us. The poor Scottish farmer is left with winter wheat and similar crops. That is not very good for us.
I like the report in many ways. It points out many useful and sensible things. I do not think that politically it is possible for us to have a fair system of free trade and open competition in this. I believe that there will be some form of allocation of grant in this business for some time to come. The European Union must get the price down to a reasonable level. There is no doubt that Poland and Hungary will push for membership—rightly so—and very much sooner than some people think. They will also become efficient producers very much quicker than we have assumed in the past. As I have said, I like the report, but I do not think that the wish expressed in it will come true in terms of moving on to a system of open competition. We must therefore make the best of the present system and ensure that it works sensibly.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the British farmer. Last month the Foreign Secretary made a speech to the German Society for Foreign Affairs in which he stated:
"If Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were to join the Union tomorrow, with the Common Agricultural Policy and structural funds operating as they do today, the bill would be around 100 billion DM a year.
Neither Britain nor Germany would be willing to pay. So we must get on and reform the CAP and adapt the structural funds. This will not be easy. The beneficiaries of the status quo will protest. But their protests cannot be allowed to obstruct enlargement".

1371
If that is the attitude and if the Foreign Secretary has any influence, I hope that at least the Minister will endeavour to protect British interests as far as he can.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the sub-committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on producing an excellent analysis of a complicated support regime. We have had an extremely interesting debate. In a debate on sugar we have had references to antique clocks, Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli.
I should say immediately that the European Commission can hardly be accused of a burst of frenetic activity in the way in which it has approached reform of the regime. As I understand it, the future of the regime is now not likely to be discussed until the meeting of the Council of Ministers at the end of May. Indeed, there could well be further delay after that. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the timetable and whether the target date of 1st June will be reached.
When considering this regime and others, I sometimes wonder whether the Eurocrats have any concept of commercial reality or the rhythm of the farming seasons. I suppose that a bureaucracy that announces a reduction in the set-aside percentage for the current season in December—some two to three months after winter-sown crops are planted—can hardly be expected to announce its proposals for the reform of an important crop regime in a timely fashion.
The committee draws attention well to the way in which sugar quotas have worked to the disadvantage of the UK in terms of the amount that has been allocated. I have to say on that point that the performance of the Government in 1981 over sugar beet quotas and in 1983 over milk quotas betrays a certain failure in negotiating on behalf of the British position. I put it no more strongly than that.
The report analyses well the substantial imperfections of the sugar regime, especially as far as consumers are concerned. I shall return to the question of tradable quotas at farm level later, but I must point out that I find one statement regarding the effect of the regime a little hard to follow. I refer to paragraph 12 on page 8 which states:
"since quotas cannot be sold, high cost production is maintained in some regions and the total cost of EC production is unnecessarily high".
There is a problem here which applies to all of our reports. When we talk about a "region", it would be helpful if it could be made clear whether we are talking about a region within a country or a region of the European Union. There is obviously an important distinction. As we know, the location of sugar beet growing in the UK is largely a matter of distance from the nearest factory. Sugar beet is a bulky crop to transport. There are large areas of the country in which it cannot be grown because there is no factory to take it within an economic distance.
Unless I am missing some obvious point, I cannot see why the making of quotas which would be tradable within the UK would have much effect on either the
1372
efficiency of the process or the cost of production at farm level. The argument might stand up if quotas were tradable across national boundaries, but I suspect that that would produce as many problems as it would solve. Anyway, it is politically a non-starter. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, made that point. As I have said, I shall return to the point about tradable quotas at farm level later.
The arguments for an increase—or at least for no cut—in the UK quota are persuasive. In the real world of EU negotiations, with trade-offs and deals on the side, I wonder how easy it would be to achieve that when it is proposed by the Commission to phase out national aids in Spain, Germany and northern Italy and to reduce them by 50 per cent. in central and southern Italy. In passing, I cannot help but admire the sheer chutzpah of the Commission in making a 50 per cent. distinction in aid levels between different areas of Italy. As your Lordships will know, chutzpah is defined as "shameless audacity".
The committee makes short work of the argument that we need a sugar regime of the sort proposed to ensure stability in the market and security of supply. I am sure that that approach is correct. It is interesting to note, purely historically, that the main reason that we have a sugar beet industry at all in this country is founded on the arguments about security of supply and providing employment, which were adduced in the 1930s. Obviously, security of supply became extremely important during the war, but that is now a piece of history.
I am almost convinced by the committee's response to the Commission's argument that the regime must be maintained intact to provide the machinery to meet the European Union's obligations under GATT. The reason that I am not completely convinced by the committee's argument is the uncertainty over exactly how the GATT commitments will be achieved in the European Union and the possible effects of the accession of the eastern European countries at some time in the future. One can see—albeit extremely reluctantly—why the Commission wants to avoid a root-and-branch reform in that uncertain situation. It is the natural reaction of the bureaucrat. I still think that the Commission is wrong, but I think I can understand its nervousness and its wish to make haste slowly in that respect.
The committee is certainly correct in accepting the Commission's assertion that the existing sugar regime, or something like it, can exist alongside the regimes for the combinable crops—cereals, oilseeds and proteins. In terms of its production and marketing characteristics, sugar beet most resembles oilseed crops. It is a pure industrial crop, with animal feed byproducts. It is grown and stored on the farm and moved to comparatively few processing plants. As we know, as a source of farm income, it has worked extremely well for those growers who have been allocated a quota.
I am surprised that the committee was surprised by the Commission's failure to mention the consumer interest. I am tempted to ask in the jargon, "What's new?". When was the Commission last concerned about the consumer interest in almost anything it does in the CAP?

1373
I am always sceptical of price forecasts as a result of changes in the European support policies. In that context, it is instructive to look back at the forecasts made in 1992 for 1994 and 1995 prices as a result of the MacSharry reforms. We know that as regards most agricultural products prices are much higher than were then forecast. In this country that was largely due to devaluation and not to the effect of reforms. However, as regards a regime that subsidises the product as heavily as does the sugar regime, there must be some effect on world prices if it is reformed.
At paragraph 65, the committee makes the point that without a sugar regime, which is extremely unlikely, users could buy sugar at a price 40 per cent. below the present price. However, I do not see that the committee describes the mechanism by which such a reduction would be passed on to the final consumer, bearing in mind the concentration in market power in the sugar industry. The committee is right to point out in paragraph 66 that the regime encourages high cost production in unsuitable regions. I repeat that we should always define what we mean by "region"—
Lord Middleton: My Lords, perhaps I may explain. Regions are not coterminous with member states' boundaries. For instance, the noble Lord mentioned the difficulty in respect of Italy. One region of Italy grows sugar beet easily and profitably but another region could not be a worse place to grow sugar beet. We refer to that as a region.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that explanation was extremely helpful and it is as I understood the position. However, reading the report quickly one may think that the regions were national and not across the Community. Throughout its existence a feature of the CAP has been that it has not led to the encouragement of efficient production in the right areas, or regions, and it is hardly surprising therefore that that is built into the sugar regime.
The committee is right to point out the Commission's failure to deal with the possible effects of the accession of the central and eastern European states and the effect of that on the sugar regime. I suspect that the real reason for the Commission's omission is that it does not have the first idea about how to deal with the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the Foreign Secretary saying that the cost of accession would be about £50 billion. That can be compared with what was said only this week by Mr. William Waldegrave in the agricultural debate in the Commons. Referring to the accession of the eastern European countries, he said:
"It is not so much pressure from the financial guideline as currently drawn that will help us in that regard; our first calculations show that the entry of at least the so-called Visegrad Four countries could probably be financed within the guideline on present, post-MacSharry policies. However, there would none the less be a large increase in cost".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/95; col. 172.]
I believe that that is the first time the position has been expressed by the department. I can see that the noble Earl the Minister is surprised and obviously communications within the department are not good. I
1374
believe that the Minister is saying that because of the savings within the budgetary guideline, if we are below it, the cost of eastern European entry could be met and we could remain within the guideline.
I considered the effect of that statement on the sugar regime and others. I believe that when in 1999 we renegotiate GATT the eastern European countries will not by then have joined. Perhaps within the GATT negotiations it would be feasible to begin to build in the effects of the accession of the eastern European countries within the early years of the next century. I do not expect the Minister to reply to the point tonight. When one compares the figure given by the Minister of Agriculture for the cost of the eastern European accession, those given by his colleague the Foreign Secretary and others that are being mentioned, it is obvious that no one has the first idea what the actual cost will be.
The Minister made much of the analogy of the tanker—that the agricultural policy is slowly changing course—and that was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Perhaps it is changing course but the oil slick is certainly not getting any smaller.
I was interested to note that at paragraph 73 the committee flirted once again with a variant of the bond system. It suggested that producers leaving the industry could be compensated by a buy-out scheme financed by the industry. It is certainly an interesting variation of the traditional idea of the bond, which would be financed by taxpayers. But when the committee refers to "the industry" it actually means the consumer. That point was made in opening by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.
The committee's conclusion in paragraphs 74 to 80 was an excellent summary. However, I wonder whether it has really thought through the political agricultural and economic results of the tradable quotas which it suggests at paragraph 78. For once I shall pray in aid the Government's view as set out in their response to the report. I shall not quote it in full because that was done by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The Government state:
"we incline to the view that assigning quotas to growers instead of (or in addition to) processors might increase the difficulty of doing so".
That is, of improving the regime. They continue:
"It might also make more difficult the eventual abolition of the quota system, if that seemed obtainable at some future date".
I wish to deal with the interesting points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on the tradability of quotas. First, that will do nothing for new entrants. If one has to buy a sugar beet quota, it will be extremely hard for a new entrant to join the regime. We know that the price of a quota is an artificial price for a bureaucratic construct. From my experience, I argue that the ability to buy quota—of course, I refer to milk quota—is not related to efficiency but to one's command over capital and income stream, Often, that has as much to do with inheritance as with efficiency.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord's analogy—I do not believe that it would be rude to describe it as his free market ideology—which was expressed by proving that there is such a thing as a free lunch. He appeared

1375
to imply that although the capital asset would be created, it would be done without any real cost to anyone. Money used to buy quota is not available for what I would describe as "useful investment". It is merely a money transfer between farmers with no obvious effect on agricultural production and investment. It is a money transfer for the exchange of an artificial licence to produce.
There is a great deal more to be done on the proposal before one can agree with it. However desirable it may be in theory—and I emphasise "in theory" - if we were to give sugar beet quotas a monetary value, and if they were to be tradable across national boundaries, it would in practice create distortions between farmers, regions in each country and member states.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was trying to make the point that the price paid for the quota is part of the profit that a more efficient producer can make compared to a less efficient producer. Therefore, that profit is being, as it were, shared. The level at which the quota reaches its price depends on many factors. One of them is the price at which one can sell the production. If there is greater production by more efficient rather than less efficient producers, a lower price can be paid to all producers. Therefore, all I am saying is that that would be a means of enabling cuts to be made in the support price for the product.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand the argument entirely but the fallacy is the assumption that efficiency gives the producer command over the income stream which enables him to buy the quota. In fact, milk quotas have shown that the ability to buy quotas depends on whether you are an owner/occupier who has inherited the farm and have no rent to pay or if you have heavy borrowings and so on. I believe that we should leave the point now and perhaps discuss it outside the Chamber. But I am not convinced on the argument that we should not be storing up trouble for the future if we were to make the quotas fully tradable.
With that one proviso on the committee's report, I repeat my congratulations to the committee and its chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Middleton—on producing an excellent report.
7.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing the comments of other noble Lords and by congratulating my noble friend Lord Middleton and the committee on the thoroughness of their analysis of what is a complex regime and the Commission's associated proposals. The committee took evidence from the wide spectrum of interests involved in the sugar sector and, although faced with a large number of often conflicting arguments, it has succeeded in producing a report which sets out clear views on the regime, the Commission's proposals and ideals for change. The Government welcome the report and agree with its underlying theme that the sugar regime badly needs to be reformed.
1376
Before discussing the substance of the report, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, by bringing your Lordships up to date with developments in Brussels on the Commission's proposals. At the time the proposals were issued, last November, it seemed there would be pressure on the Council to take an early decision. In the event, that timetable slipped, but the indications are that the Presidency will be seeking to press towards agreement at next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. The debate we are having today is therefore very timely and will contribute to the Government's preparations for the Council negotiations.
The Government have long been critical of the sugar regime, which, as my noble friend Lord Middleton said, has changed little since its introduction in 1968. High support prices in the Community encourage the production and export of a large surplus and work against the interests of both domestic and industrial consumers. Further, the quota regime does not reflect the relative efficiency of production among member states; nor does it encourage efficiency. We had hoped that the Commission would have taken the opportunity of the current review to undertake a thoroughgoing reform of the regime.
Therefore, like the committee, we were disappointed by the limited nature of the Commission's proposals. Those do little more than introduce provisions to enable production quotas to be cut, if necessary, for GATT purposes and modifications to elements of the cane sugar supply arrangements necessitated by the end of the Portuguese transition period. In particular, the proposals make no recommendations for any reductions in support prices.
The Government agree with the committee that reductions in price are necessary to reduce the imbalance with other arable crops, to benefit consumers and to respond to GATT pressures. The minimalist approach adopted by the Commission will send entirely the wrong signal to producers who will have to face up to continuing GATT pressures and, as the report points out, the prospect of the accession of Central and Eastern European states. It can not be right to encourage producers to believe that the regime can continue unchanged indefinitely.
The main elements of the GATT agreement to affect sugar are requirements for a 36 per cent. cut in the level of export refund expenditure; and a 21 per cent. cut in the volume of subsidised exports compared with the 1986–1990 base period. That means that, in the year 2000–01, expenditure will be limited to 497 mecu and volume to 1.277 million tonnes—excluding a quantity equivalent to ACP imports.
It is difficult to predict exactly how these limits will affect the sugar regime because of the number of variables affecting EU consumption and world prices. Depending on assumptions used, production cuts needed can range from minimal to over 500,000 tonnes. The Commission has taken the optimistic view that the effect will be minimal. GATT also requires a 20 per cent. reduction in border protection, which may, in the latter years of the GATT period, lead to pressure on Community prices—but again, as the noble Lord, Lord

1377
Carter, said, much depends on the level of world prices. Like the committee, we believe that it is better to prepare now for those changes by planned reductions.
We agree with the committee that the prospect of accession of the Central and East European States to the Community should have been considered by the Commission. Their accession would require major changes to Community agricultural policy as a whole. That is essentially because of the very significant budgetary consequences of applying the CAP in its present form. Further, the CEE countries, under GATT, have only very small entitlements to make subsidised exports. It is difficult to consider in isolation the detailed effects on sugar of absorbing these countries into the Community, but accession will clearly put more pressure on the regime.
We share the committee's conclusion that there should be a planned, phased reduction in support levels. In Brussels we have argued for a 12 per cent. price reduction over three years, followed by a review. In answer to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I should say that we share the view that a 6-year regime as proposed is not satisfactory. However, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we do not agree that price reductions should be accompanied by compensation to growers. We believe compensation should be considered only as a transitional measure to enable growers to adapt to sudden and significant reductions in prices. We see no need for it at all if prices are reduced gradually over time. For sugar, it also has to be remembered that there is a considerable margin for price cuts before compensation could even become an issue. Before the 1992 CAP reform package introduced the concept of compensation, cereals prices were cut significantly whereas sugar prices changed little. Therefore, sugar has more than a little catching up to do.
Sugar prices are seriously out of line with those for other crops. Including agrimonetary changes, sugar prices have been cut by only about 4 per cent. since 1985. Cereals prices have seen cuts by around 19 per cent. before compensation was offered under CAP reform. Therefore there is scope for price cuts before the question of compensation need arise.
It is said that the sugar regime is self-financing. It is true that levies on growers and processors cover the costs of disposing of surplus quota sugar with the exception of a tonnage equivalent to imports—essentially sugar brought in under preferential arrangements, mainly from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and India. Similarly, storage aids are covered by levies on sugar when it is first marketed. The net budgetary cost is therefore relatively low. However, as many noble Lords have said, the cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, wondered how any price cuts might be passed on to consumers. It would be surprising if competitive pressures did not result in the benefit being passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. The Consumers in Europe Group, in its submission to the committee, indicated clearly that consumers would pay less for both sugar and products containing sugar—such as biscuits, drinks and
1378
confectionery—if prices were cut. Obviously, where sugar is only one of several ingredients, that would contribute to keeping down end product prices but would not lead to substantial price cuts.
My noble friend Lord Reay made some wise comments about quota cuts. The committee recommends a cut in the overall Community quota of up to 20 per cent. However, as the report notes, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will doubtless be pleased to hear, quota cuts are not our preferred method either for adjusting the regime to meet GATT commitments or as an instrument of reform. The Government believe that action on prices is a better means of discouraging surpluses and of directing production towards the more efficient producers and member states. Mechanisms for distributing quota cuts among member states tend to be arbitrary and based on criteria which disadvantage the UK. However, if there have to be quota cuts, we share the Committee's view that they should be based on member states' past performance and levels of self-sufficiency, which supports our argument in Brussels that cuts in the UK quota are unjustified.
The committee suggests that consideration should be given to the idea of a right of quota ownership for growers and then making that quota transferable. That point was raised especially by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and by my noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Marlesford. Certainly it has theoretical attractions as a means of facilitating a more efficient allocation of production. However, I have to say that we have doubts whether such changes would really be practicable or lead to lower costs and thus lower prices. It would require fundamental changes to the regime and add yet another layer of rules and regulations. As my noble friend Lord Reay pointed out, it would imbue quota with capital value, and would make simplifying and dismantling the regime at a later date even more difficult.
If the object is to move production towards the more efficient, the Government believe that the most effective means is to bear down on support levels and allow the market to operate. It is high prices and the quota system as such which allow inefficient production to continue. I should tell my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Reay that the alternative is for the contract arrangements between processors and growers to be modified to allow more flexibility. That could be done under current rules with the agreement of both parties. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am much obliged. My noble friend said that it is desirable to "bear down" on the less efficient producers by price. The answer is that one would have to compensate those people who are forced out by cuts in prices experienced right through Europe up until now. Further, if one had to compensate them, one would have to do so with someone's money. The advantage of the quota system is that compensation comes from those who remain in the business rather than the taxpayer or the consumer.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. However, I have already argued that we do not believe that compensation would be warranted if

1379
price cuts took place gradually over a period of years. If there were a sudden cut in price, I agree that there would be a case for compensation. However, there are other difficulties involved.
Introducing transferable grower quotas would require fundamental changes to the regime, since quotas are expressed in terms of sugar and are allocated to member states, which then distribute them to sugar processors. Sugar processors contract with growers for the quantity of beet needed to meet the national sugar quota, and that varies from year to year according to growing conditions and productivity improvements. Clearly, the determination of growers' quotas would not be straightforward and would involve government, growers and processors in a bureaucratic exercise which is currently settled by commercial contracts.
My noble friend Lord Reay asked what the Government's view was on the international transfer of quotas. As my right honourable friend said in his reply to the committee's report, the movement of sugar and sugar beet production across national frontiers to more productive areas would be needed to make a real difference to the overall efficiency of production. To negotiate the necessary change in Community rules on quota allocation would obviously be difficult. The Government have not yet achieved that in any other sector where quotas apply. Moreover, to echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, it is also not clear that giving a right of ownership to a transferable quota would create any increase in real wealth as less resources would be available for land, machinery and inputs. So, it is purely a point of economics. Capital would be tied up in quota and, if anything, I believe that that would, in turn, increase pressure to maintain prices at high levels to maintain the asset value of the quota. I do not believe that it would act as a depressant on price levels.
The committee also suggested that quota auctions and industry-financed restructuring schemes should be examined. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Marlesford spoke eloquently in favour of that broad idea. Again, I would agree with my noble friend that such schemes have attractions as a means of shifting production to the more efficient. But we have doubts about the negotiability of cost-effective schemes. As the committee acknowledges, there are strong producer interests in the regime and it would be difficult to avoid an outcome which did not impinge on consumers or the budget. That is a further reason why price reductions remain our preferred method of adjustment.
As regards the Commission's proposals, we welcome the Committee's support for the modifications to the cane supply arrangements, which should benefit both our refining industry and developing country suppliers. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, dwelt particularly on the ACP countries. Perhaps I may make a few points about the sugar protocol. Neither the GATT Uruguay Round nor the review of the regime will affect the provisions of the Lomé Sugar Protocol, which is of indefinite duration. Clearly, if EC prices change, the price to the ACP will have to be negotiated with that in mind. However, that is fully consistent with the protocol provisions. As my noble friend Lord Middleton said,
1380
that gives the ACP countries the right to export 1.3 million tonnes of cane sugar to the EC every year at zero import levy and annually negotiated prices which, in practice, have been equivalent to the EU intervention price. But it does not guarantee any particular level of income. In addition, the ACP countries will be able to benefit from additional access provisions under the Commission's proposals, although the supply terms have yet to be determined.
Although the Commission has indicated that priority will be given to ACP supplies as far as possible, the proposal does not exclude imports from other countries. However, as the noble Viscount said, it is clearly in the EU's interest to obtain the bulk of the supplies from ACP, since the Community's GATT export commitments are calculated net of a quantity equivalent to ACP and Indian imports.
The Commission's proposals define refiners' maximum needs, but do not guarantee a definite supply. They provide for arrangements to import a shortfall calculated according to a set formula. That is an improvement on the current arrangements. But it is not possible for the EU to dictate to the ACP/Lomé countries how much they should send or to whom. The formula will also not take account of any further substitution of raw cane sugar for refining with raw cane sugar for direct consumption, whether from ACP or DOM suppliers. If imports of such direct consumption sugar continue to increase, there will be a deficit of sugar for refining.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked whether the ACP producers would be compensated in the case of price cuts. I should say that we will continue to support the ACP case for the right to supply more sugar to the EC cane refineries at preferential terms of access. But if EU prices are cut, import prices also need to be cut to maintain the viability of our cane refining industry. As for Community producers, as I have said, we do not agree that there is a need for compensation.
The noble Viscount also asked what criteria the Commission will adopt in setting the price for additional quantities. That will be a matter for negotiation. Obviously, the price will need to be sufficient to attract the suppliers in order to secure the necessary supplies at reasonable cost. I am afraid that that is as far as I can go at present.
We also agreed with the committee that storage refunds for non-quota "C" sugar should be abolished as proposed by the Commission. Like the committee, we are not convinced that abolition will affect security of supply. We agree with the Commission that the aid is unnecessary and acts as a stimulus to non-quota production. Its abolition will reduce storage levy charged, which should feed through to lower prices to consumers, which we would welcome. We believe that the decision to carry forward non-quota sugar should be a commercial judgment and not related to the availability of subsidy. Abolition of the refund should not affect the security of supply, since processors will still be able to carry over non-quota sugar if they wish and already existing Community regulations require processors to hold a minimum level of stocks, as a

1381
contingency measure, in addition to normal stocks. We also have an alternative source of supply in the form of refined cane sugar.
On national aids for the beet sector, we agree with the committee that aids in Spain and Germany should be discontinued and there should be no prolongation of any of the Italian aids. In conclusion, I am grateful to the committee for its report. The broad thrust of what the committee has recommended is very much in line with our own thinking. We too are frustrated by the lack of significant change proposed by the Commission, but I am bound to say that, sadly, this reflects the attitude of the majority of member states. But the recent GATT agreement has forced the Commission to look at the sugar regime and propose the introduction of some curbs to it. The pressure to change the regime will not go away and we will, in the current negotiations and in the future, maintain our efforts to seek greater rationalisation. I should like to thank the committee for the opportunity its report has provided for this helpful debate, which ensures that a close examination of the sugar regime is not overlooked.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply on behalf of the Government and I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I took the vulpine attribute of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to myself as a compliment. I am grateful to him. I have a great respect for foxes. I note with much interest that there is little difference between the Select Committee's views about the sugar regime and its reform, and those of the Government. We agree that Community production should be curbed through the price mechanism. In view of the political practicalities, the committee recommends quota reduction in addition. How much emphasis should be laid on either of these control methods is hard to judge at this stage. The Government will go hard for price control, and they may well be right, if they can get it. If our report and this debate contribute in even a small way to giving added weight to pressure upon the Community to speed up CAP reform, then our efforts will not have been in vain.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pylons in the Vale of York
7.42 p.m.
Lord Crathorne Lord Crathorne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government under what conditions they would refuse permission for a 400 kilovolt line of pylons to be constructed between Lackenby and Shipton in addition to the existing 400 kilovolt line.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to ask the Question on the Order Paper about the 400 kilovolt pylons which the National Grid wants to construct between Lackenby and Shipton. The matter has been raised on five occasions in another place but this is the first opportunity we have had in this House to discuss the issues involved. I realise that my noble friend sitting on the Front Bench will not be able
1382
to get into the detail regarding this specific application but I am sure he will be able to deal with a number of general issues which the application raises.
First, I must in the tradition of the House declare an interest. I live on an agricultural estate in the north-east and some of the pylons which are the subject of this planning application will run over land owned by a trust controlled by my family. However, I should like to emphasise that this is not a NIMBY question. We already have pylons in our backyard—14 of them in fact. The new proposals would add another five to our overall total.
No one chooses to have pylons running across his land; but in this case the degree of local opposition from individuals and organisations goes far beyond a general dissatisfaction with pylons. This opposition stems from the very basic fact that there is no proven need for this line which would run in parallel with the existing 400 kilovolt line.
The problem goes back to the moment that planning permission was granted for the construction of a gas fired electricity plant by Teesside Power Ltd. (TPL)—sometimes called Enron—at Wilton on Teesside. In September 1990 before the then Secretary of State gave planning consent for this power station, the Office of Electricity Regulation issued a derogation to the National Grid Company. This means that part of the planning standards could be disregarded for the connection. Shortly after this, the National Grid Company came to a commercial agreement with Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to increase the transmission capacity from Scotland to England. NGC concluded that it would need further capacity and lodged an application with the North Yorkshire County Council for the line which is the subject of my Question tonight.
The existing line has a capacity of over 5,000 megawatts. In fact, no part of the National Grid has a greater capacity than this. TPL, since it started operating in April 1993, has put about 1,000 megawatts of its output down this existing line. The Scottish connection brings to the north-east only 240 megawatts. Very simple arithmetic shows that there is still a very substantial additional capacity on the existing line, so why is there a need for a second line?
The security backup requirements in case of a double circuit failure are seen by many people to be unnecessarily high. The average failure over the whole National Grid is one minute per year per customer. I remind your Lordships that there are over half a million minutes in every year. The existing Yorkshire line which has been in existence for 23 years has not failed once since its construction. Are we really going to have this line foisted on us for this contingency?
Since TPL started putting electricity into the existing line, there have been no problems relating to the line. The setting of the security standards is the responsibility of OFFER, the electricity industry watchdog run by Professor Littlechild. Last month he published the outcome of the review on NGC security standards. The review was conducted by NGC itself and it took two years to report back regarding its own transmission standards. Professor Littlechild made it clear in his

1383
statement that although he is not minded to change the planning standards in the short term, he is not satisfied with the existing standards as a whole.
Perhaps we may now turn to what I believe is the National Grid's real reason for wanting this second line. This is that two other gas fired generating stations are under consideration for the north-east; namely, Flotilla and Neptune. Indeed NGC has already entered into agreements for connection into the grid of these two stations should they be built. This is in spite of the fact that no formal planning application has yet been made. In the north-east we very much hope that these stations will never be given consent. In any event, the possibility of these two additional stations should not be taken into consideration in relation to the application we are discussing tonight. If that point is accepted by the Secretary of State, it is hard to see that there is sufficient justification for granting permission for this second line of pylons to be built.
The Government should not grant permission and should discourage remote generation of electricity. It is extraordinarily wasteful in two ways. First, the power loss that results when electricity is transported several hundred miles before it reaches the consumers is great. In the case of TPL, the power loss is about 6 per cent. and with the Scottish exports around 10 per cent.
Secondly, remote generation runs counter to the Government's own policy of the creation of combined heat and generation plants when both the electricity and the by-product of heat are sold. TPL was indeed meant to be a CHP station but the problem is that there is no market for Enron's heat in that location, and from my home I can see the great steam clouds rising daily from TPL just five miles down the road. About 50 per cent. of the energy from the gas used disappears with the steam into the atmosphere and it really is a terrible waste of a finite fossil fuel resource.
The 1989 Electricity Act makes remote generation the easiest option for a company considering building a power station. Building near the source of the fuel and then asking National Grid for a connection (which it is legally bound to give) almost regardless of where the electricity is needed, is, sadly, the easier option. But it is not the best option. It is much more efficient to pipe the gas to the point where the electricity is needed and then build your much smaller power station or stations in an area where both the electricity and the heat are marketable.
Although some undergrounding of gas pipes may be necessary, there is a national gas grid with substantial spare capacity. Combined heat and power plants can be very small and, for example, a few miles from where I live and from the TPL station, the Darlington Memorial Hospital opened a one megawatt power station last December. This provides the base load for both the electricity and the heat for the hospital. Such schemes should be encouraged. More are needed in areas of high consumption, particularly in the south.
I hope that from my remarks tonight your Lordships will understand why people in the north-east feel so strongly about this issue. Mr. John Greenway, the Member for Ryedale, in his adjournment debate in
1384
another place last week said that this was the most strongly felt public anger that he had ever known in his constituency.
When the public inquiry was held in 1992 more than 8,000 objections were lodged, and REVOLT, the group formed to fight the pylons, gave such effective evidence throughout the inquiry that the inspector, Mr. Graham, expressed his admiration for the work it had put in and the degree of expertise it had shown.
NGC's argument relied on the fact that it merely wished to fulfil a legal duty as the company saw it. Despite all the submissions about the environment, the possible ill-effects on health created by electromagnetic fields and the more environmentally friendly solution of undergrounding the cables, the DTI inspectors ended by siding with the National Grid company.
The Secretary of State's response was that he was "minded" to grant consent for the pylons once the wayleaves had been obtained by NGC. If landowners and occupiers of land are unwilling to grant wayleaves voluntarily the National Grid may seek the power to impose wayleaves. At the wayleave hearing, two thirds of those affected did not sign an agreement with the National Grid, which shows an extraordinarily high level of dissatisfaction with the National Grid proposals.
That is not the full extent of the dissatisfaction. The real figure is substantially higher as there were many who signed, myself included, who would much rather not have done so but whose hands were tied in one way or another, for example, by legal constraints.
The saga continues. A further public inquiry is now under way at Northallerton, examining alternative proposals for two sections of the proposed power line, where the issues are being raised again in evidence to the inspectors.
The electricity industry is in a state of flux, transition and uncertainty. It is clear that the privatised energy utilities are capable of delivering greater efficiency at lower prices. I mentioned earlier that Professor Littlechild is looking into security standards. He is also to look, with Ofgas, at the relative pricing of electricity and gas transmission lines. He will look at the whole question of the pricing of transmission and price control by NGC. The advances in superconductivity will enable undergrounding within a decade at lower cost and lower energy losses. There is still more to be done on the effects of electromagnetic fields on our health.
Finally, I feel strongly that the views of those affected should be taken into account by the Secretary of State. It may be a little time before he has to make a decision. I hope that he will look at the wider context and will come to the conclusion that the application should be rejected in the present circumstances and that the application should only be considered concurrently with that for any Future power station which would create the need for the line.
Before I sit down, I should like to thank those Peers who have put their names down to speak in the debate and also my noble friend on the Front Bench who will answer. We look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
7.53 p.m.
The Marquess of Downshire: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Crathorne has asked this particularly pertinent Question as it gives me the opportunity to underline what he said in a few words and to demonstrate the difficulties that individual electricity transmission schemes can face when there is no overall plan to guide those responsible for the National Grid.
It is all very well for the DTI to encourage the conversion of gas into electricity, which is in essence the embryo of the problem which has surfaced in this case, but the power so generated must surely travel over a minimum distance in order to obtain the maximum benefit. The proposed power line is nearly 50 miles in length. For most of that distance the transmission lines travel above ground through an area known as the Vale of York.
The landowners with whom the National Grid is treating are almost universally opposed to the pylons, despite the apparent generosity shown by the size of the compensation offered. There have been a great many objectors, including local authorities and other institutions.
To return to the subject of compensation, although I understand that negotiations between the National Grid and landowners have so far remained amicable, there could come a time, and it will surely come, when the pylon builders' purse runs out and compulsory purchase arrives. Surely there then arises a more potent conflict of interest—the invocation of public power in order to provide private profit.
I therefore earnestly entreat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look very hard at all the facts, not least the possibility of yet another line of pylons marching across unspoilt country. Although in this case agricultural land is not being removed, a substantial amount will be sterilised, thereby taking the land in question out of production. The farmers, landowners and others, from whatever walk of life, are not in the business of allowing unnecessary power lines to intrude. Surely those who come after will not thank them for that form of legacy.
7.57 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has given us the opportunity to debate this Question this evening, which he has explained so clearly.
I find myself speaking for the second time in less than three weeks, begging the Government to listen to the voice of the people in North Yorkshire, and hopefully not to turn a deaf ear this time.
1386
A great part of North Yorkshire is built up of small farms. Two thirds of the farmers have already refused to reach any agreement with the NGC. They have been offered money, in some cases more than £40,000, which they have refused. Their feelings must be very strong indeed for this to happen.
In 1992, more than 8,000 objections were lodged when the public inquiry was held. Since then a petition of more than 12,000 signatures has been lodged with the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Much of the proposed line goes through open countryside, in which it will be visible for many miles around, especially at the height which has been proposed of 80-foot pylons. Can the Minister confirm that, should these pylons be erected, they will be of that height? I am sure that, living in Cumbria, the noble Lord will appreciate the worries of local people about their countryside, of which they are justifiably proud. Once you destroy an environment it can never be completely restored. It was of much of this area that Tacitus spoke 2,000 years ago and said, "that they had made a desert and called it peace". Do the Government wish to repeat the occasion?
The objections to these huge power lines have as their bases the environment, agriculture and the apparently unresolved question of whether there is a danger to health, whether human or animal.
The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has already mentioned the possibility of building two gas-fired generating stations, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat some of what he said. The NGC has already entered into agreement with two other gas-fired generating stations for the north-east coast, Flotilla and Neptune, which are under consideration for connection into the grid. Whether or not those generating stations are to be built with private money, there have not yet been any formal applications for planning consent for either Flotilla or Neptune. Surely this is putting the cart before the horse.
No need for these power lines has yet been proved. I understand that instead they could put gas lines underground to a point where they wish to put a gas-fired generating station in the south, where the electricity is needed. So why not do this?
The regulator, Professor Littlechild, is conducting further inquiries over the pricing structure, so surely it would be sensible to wait before erecting any further power lines. The present line is the most powerful in the National Grid in the country and is not running to full capacity. Why erect those power lines before they are really needed, when perhaps in 10 years' time, or even less, it may be decided that nuclear power or some other form of power is better and cheaper?
What kind of environment are we leaving to future generations? Why do the Government not listen to the voice of the people in North Yorkshire? May I hope that they will do so?
8.1 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Crathorne said about the proposed 400 kilovolt line of pylons in North

1387
Yorkshire. I have not so far taken part in the public debate about the project. It is a debate that has rumbled on for about four years. Many of the arguments are highly technical and I am not qualified to speak on such matters.
Nevertheless, to the layman, on hearing my noble friend tonight there seemed to be five good reasons that the Government should not be in a hurry to give consent to the construction of this power line. First, there is the doubt as to whether a new power line is needed in addition to the existing line over roughly the same route. Secondly, new technology seems to be on the horizon and, if there were even a remote chance of 150 foot high pylons becoming obsolete in the near future, there must be a doubt hanging over the building of 50 miles or so of the old type.
Thirdly, there appears to be a case for paying attention to growing evidence of damage to health from exposure to electro-magnetic fields generated by power lines. Fourthly, as we have heard, the environmental damage would be considerable. The proposed route will grossly disfigure some of the prettiest parts of north Yorkshire and will be in full view from the North York Moors National Park. Fifthly, as my noble friend Lord Crathorne said, there is great public opposition to the project and there is a feeling of being bulldozed into accepting an invasion into property and amenity that may well turn out to be wholly unnecessary.
If I am told that delay would not be acceptable and that there is a hurry to get started because there is an extremely expensive gas-fired power station at Middlesbrough without the means to distribute its current, then I would have to compare the situation with the building of the Brabazon aircraft, which was built at Bristol just after the war without airfields on which to land.
Years ago, I attended an inquiry about pylons. They were bitterly opposed by all witnesses except one. He was a retired admiral whose great pleasure it was to sit looking down a line of pylons because they reminded him of the Grand Fleet at sea in line ahead. I do not expect that argument to be advanced this time. However, I support my noble friend in asking the Government to think very hard before launching this deeply unpopular proposed construction.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crathorne for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. As I understand it, it will be quite difficult for the Minister to reply directly on this specific project since it is under investigation through the public inquiry procedure. Reading, as I have done, the debate on the same subject in another place, it seems to me that he may speak somewhat more generally on the problems involved in undergrounding wires. I am rather glad of that because, although I have been to the area to which my noble friend refers, I do not know it as well as I should.
The debate gives me the opportunity to speak perhaps rather generally on what I regard as an important subject. I should at once declare two interests: first, as
1388
a member of the board of the Eastern Group, which is the biggest of the regional electricity companies in this country; and, secondly, as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. With both hats on, I take a considerable interest in undergrounding wires.
When electricity was first produced, it was such an exciting event that its arrival by any means was acceptable. Indeed I suspect, although I do not remember the moment, that it was probably fairly prestigious to have wires approaching the premises where one lived or worked rather as, somewhat later (a period that I do remember) television and masts had the same attraction. However, things move on and there is no doubt that wires generally have grown like Topsy and now provide an unattractive feature—very intrusive to much of the landscape and countryside.
We know that the costs of undergrounding are great. The question must always be whether they are costs which can and should be paid. The costs vary a great deal with the line concerned. I understand that the line which my noble friend discusses is a 400 kilovolt line. The cost of undergrounding such a line is approximately 20 times the cost above ground. At the lower voltages the ratio is much smaller. For the 11 kilovolt line which will serve a small community, the cost is 2.3 times greater. For the 400 volt line which will go to ordinary properties the cost is approximately 1.7 times greater. It is very much more economic.
Having said that, we must consider carefully before new lines are put up, in particular when, as appears in this instance, they are dual lines. When I was a member of the Countryside Commission I remember the application for Sizewell B. One reason that the Countryside Commission did not oppose Sizewell B was that Sizewell A, which was already in an area of outstanding natural beauty, had erected for its service pylons which, with extra wires on them, were adequate to carry the power from Sizewell B also. That was a very good reason. We might have taken a very different view on the building of Sizewell B in the area of Sizewell A on the Suffolk coast, but given that the power station was there, and that the pylons could cope with Sizewell B, there was good reason to have Sizewell B.
As your Lordships perhaps know, the output of Sizewell A is some 430 megawatts, and that of Sizewell B some 1200 megawatts, making 1630 megawatts. I hope that my noble friend Lord Crathorne has pursued in some detail whether it is necessary to have those additional pylons, or whether it might not be possible to put more wires on the same pylons, as was done at Sizewell. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable request to make.
I should like to say a few words about what can be done much more easily. For that purpose I take the experience that I have had through Eastern Electricity. A programme has now been in force for three years whereby the company specifically sets aside money for undergrounding low voltage wires in designated areas; that is national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coasts, conservation areas and special landscape areas. So far the company has spent £½ million on undergrounding; the value of the undergrounding that

1389
has taken place is at least double that because others have contributed to the cost. So far, 18 villages in Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex—all in designated areas—have had their low voltage wires put underground. In 1995–96, £¼ million has been allocated for the same purpose and it is hoped to extend the scheme in the eastern area to Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire.
The method of choosing where the undergrounding should go, assuming that designated areas are involved, is that the parish councils will decide that they find the wirescape intrusive. They will apply to the district council to be included in a list which will be submitted to the county councils. The county councils will then submit their list to Eastern Electricity and eventually a judgment will have to be made as to which ones are included in the programme.
The effect is dramatic in hugely improving the view of the areas. Villages such as Maldon, Cavendish, Aldeburgh, Burnham Market, Stoke by Nayland and even the little village of Marlesford in which I live, have benefited from the scheme. I can assure noble Lords that if they went to those villages and saw the pictures of before and afterwards, they would realise the benefit.
The expenditure does not only come from Eastern Electricity. There is no point in an undergrounding project unless British Telecom puts its wires underground at the same time. It is expected to do so and has done so. The county councils and district councils contribute, and even the parish councils contribute their widow's mite, in order to show that they are serious about the matter. The National Trust has contributed in certain cases; so have English Heritage, the Countryside Commission and some of the local preservation societies. I hope that other regional electricity companies will now follow suit. So far, they have not and I suggest that those noble Lords who have an interest in the subject and know of designated areas where the wirescape is intrusive should, perhaps through the parish council chain, put pressure on regional electricity companies to set up similar programmes. They can well be afforded.
One point I wish to make is that it would be desirable for the regulator to allow such amenity expenditure to be a deductible cost—which it is not at the moment—for the purpose of working out the economics of the price of power. I recognise that undergrounding low voltage lines may not be much comfort to my noble friend with his 400 kilovolt wires, but it is still a step in the right direction.
I believe that one day there will be greater scope. In the long run, probably when we are no longer around, with the further development of nuclear and solar power as well as superconductivity, we shall probably be in the happy position where power is either produced on the spot where it is needed or it may be produced in a series of nuclear or solar power stations perhaps miles away on a desert coast. The power could be transmitted throughout the world by undergrounded superconductivity lines.
1390
Meanwhile, I suggest that the Government should do all they can, through the planning system, to encourage the most careful assessment of routes and the review of existing lines which are often no longer acceptable. Perhaps other electricity suppliers could be persuaded to follow the example of Eastern Electricity in introducing a serious programme of undergrounding throughout this beautiful country.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to support my noble friend. My noble kinsman mentioned the effect on the plain of Northallerton. It is a wide plain below the national park and there is no doubt that a large number of wires would be unattractive and visible from a long way.
It cannot be disputed that the proposal has caused great concern to people in the area and there has been a great deal of interest and opposition to it. Not many years ago large pipes were put in underground carrying either gas or oil from the north-east coast to Lancashire. It surprises me that when a pipe is clearly economically viable for chemical firms, it should not be viable to carry gas to the area where the electricity is needed and where there will be no loss of gas, as opposed to the large loss described of electricity.
I look forward to the Minister's reply, but I understand that one of the lines of wires will be taken down by Enron and a much bigger line substituted which will look worse than the line already there. But at least there will only be one line, not two. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister confirms or denies that. I support my noble friend and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for putting down the Question and to noble Lords who have contributed to our discussion. I must be honest and say that when I first saw the Question and was told that I had to deal with it, I took the rather cynical view that it was just a bunch of rich landowners objecting to damage to their property consequent on economic advance. I wondered why I should bother. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, pointed out, this is not a NIMBY Question, nor a rich landowner matter, as I discovered by going into it in detail.
What I find most impressive is the scale of the objections to what is proposed. So far as I can see, they appear to cover virtually everyone in the area. All the local authorities are unhappy, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the national parks people are unhappy. The farmers are certainly unhappy and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, drew to our attention that to a considerable degree we are discussing small farmers. Most of the ordinary people in that part of the world are unhappy, and I understand that for once even the local media are united in saying that it is an undesirable state of affairs. I am happy to add that so

1391
far as I can see there is no party aspect to the objections. Everyone who is aware of the proposal says that there is something wrong.
We start from the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, that there seems to be no proven need for the line in the first place. In my judgment, a proven need would have to consist of two parts. We would need a full economically sound assessment of what is required, but equally that must be coupled with an environmental assessment. In other words, one cannot take a narrow view of such a development and whether there is a simple pay off. We must calculate—and in my judgment it can be done—the effect on the environment and weigh everything in the balance. We must ask what are the economic benefits, net; what are the environmental disbenefits; do the former outweigh the latter? Even if we do that, we still have to deal with the question that if there are gainers and losers, will the gainers not be obliged to compensate the losers?
That takes me to an altogether more fundamental point which is more general than the specific case but the specific case enables us to discuss it. It is the point of compulsory purchase, to which the noble Marquess referred.
If the relevant utilities are public utilities, whether national or municipal, one can put up quite a good case for compulsory purchase. But once those utilities are in the private sector, as they are, I can see no economically sound case whatsoever for compulsory purchase. It seems to me that what follows in that case is the need for the two parties—those who wish to build the pylons and those whose land those pylons will cross—to come to some mutual agreement so that each benefits. If they cannot reach some mutual agreement, then there is no case for building these pylons or anything else. In other words, one of the things that the Government have to face up to is that once you privatise, you really do have to privatise.
The Government say that they believe that markets, and not politicians, should decide how much energy, and of what kind, should be produced or consumed, and by whom. If the Government believe that, their view is completely incompatible, as a matter of logic, with compulsory purchase. If markets are to decide this, then markets are to decide it; and they must fully compensate all those who are affected. If the people who wish to build the line cannot then do so, it should not be built.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was fascinated by the noble Lord's analysis. But does he think that, had the principles that he now enunciates been around 150 years ago, we would ever have had a railway system in Britain?
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is a point that is often raised. The noble Lord is aware that, since I teach this subject, this is not the first time that the point has been made to me. But, with respect, if he wishes to go into the question of the building of the railways, it has to be asked whether they did not do some damage to our environment, much of which turned out to be irreparable. Did not many people suffer who were not compensated? One of the points about those developments in the 19th century is that we have learnt
1392
since then that we wish to get the benefits of economic progress—I certainly do—without excessive cost in terms of damage to the environment.
Bearing in mind a point which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Marquess, Lord Downshire, were guiding us towards, much of the damage that occurs is irreversible. In other words, once some of these environments are ruined, there is no way of recapturing what was there before. My point is that one has to think about these matters. One cannot just plough ahead.
This relates to another matter which we were guided towards by several noble Lords who spoke. Permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Energy (as he then was) for the building of a large generating station. That, I assume, was looked into very carefully indeed. But what puzzles and indeed distresses me is that if one is giving permission for the building of a generating station and assessing that, it follows, again quite logically, that the simple question ought to be asked: how shall we get the product of this generating station to those who will use it?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not sure, but I think that he will find that no permission was necessary, because planning permission has been devolved to the industrial area.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that may be the case; I am indebted to the noble Lord. I was under the impression that permission had to have been granted. I am talking about the building of the power station. I am not saying that the power station should not be built, nor that transmission lines should not be built. I am simply saying that I should like all those decisions to be taken first as a whole and, secondly, taken rationally.
To return to the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, we certainly could not take the view that no one will ever build another power station or another transmission system. What we want to know is whether the decision is a rational one.
A further consideration, about which the Minister will perhaps tell us, is: what is it that the inspectors looking at this matter may take into account; and what is it that they do take into account? Are they specifically limited; and therefore do the Government not have a special responsibility in matters of this kind to look beyond what the inspectors look at? I have no idea how the inspectors have reached their conclusion. My concern—which I take it is also the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne—is to say that the inspectors do not run this country. Others have to take relevant decisions. What concerns me is whether the Secretary of State, the right honourable friend of the noble Lord the Minister, is able to take account of the objections and the concern in the area.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the Minister to the precise wording of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne. I am not sure whether it was meant to be quite as precise as it is—sometimes one

1393
puts down a Question simply in order to have a general debate. The Question is, to me at least, remarkably interesting. What the noble Lord asks is:
"under what conditions they would refuse permission".
In other words, he asks a quite specific Question. He does not, I take it, want a blah, blah, blah Answer. He wants the answer to the question: will you tell me under what conditions you would refuse permission? I therefore hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give us a precise Answer to the precise Question that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, put down.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Crathorne upon raising this issue for debate here today so soon after the Adjournment debate in the other place last week. I welcome, too, the opportunity to hear the views that he put forward, and those of the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness from Yorkshire—including Yorkshire's Lord Lieutenant—as well as the views of the others in this Chamber, who (like myself) do not come from Yorkshire.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that I cannot discuss the merits or otherwise of the particular project to which my noble friend refers, which is the proposal by the National Grid Company (NGC) to install an overhead power line about 75 kilometres long from Teesside south through the Vale of York. But I note that it would be one of the largest overhead line developments of recent years and it is entirely appropriate that it should receive detailed scrutiny, both through the planning process and in this House and the other place, where several debates have been held during the long history of this project. As noble Lords explained this evening, this matter has clearly generated a great deal of local concern. That is something of which we are aware and we will take it into account when coming to a conclusion.
Two small points were raised which perhaps I can answer most appropriately here. I was asked about the height of the pylons. I understand that they are likely to be between 40 and 45 metres, which is the main type, and that is normal in this sort of scheme. Secondly, it was asked whether it was possible that the existing line could somehow have extra wires attached to it. I understand that it is the view of NGC that simply adding more wires to the existing line is not a feasible option.
All aspects of the project have been, or still are, the subject of statutory proceedings, the reports of which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be considering carefully when making his decisions. I must therefore limit my remarks to general matters and not the particular issues that have been raised at the public inquiries and local hearings. That may mean that I cannot give my noble friend as full an Answer as he would like. Some of the points that he raises are the subject of submissions at the inquiries. Nonetheless, I and my colleagues will take note, as I have already mentioned, of the points which he and others raised.
1394
My noble friend asked under what conditions the Government would refuse permission for the overhead line proposal in Cleveland and North Yorkshire. He will doubtless appreciate from what I have just said that I cannot comment in relation to these specific applications made by NGC. But I can nonetheless set out examples of cases which could arise in which consent might be refused. I hope that in doing so I shall answer the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
The general position is that all but the most minor of overhead line developments require the consent of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Consent carries with it a deemed planning permission. That consent might not be granted in a case where an applicant has failed to comply with his duty towards the preservation of amenity as required by Schedule 9 to the Electricity Act. Another instance might be a case where my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade takes the view that the adverse environmental effects of the project are such that he considers consent should be withheld. He may reach such a view as a result, for example, of the inspector's recommendations following a public inquiry; of an Environmental Statement supplied with the application; or, in the absence of that, of the department's own findings and conclusions. In cases of this kind it will then be for the applicant, if he still wishes to pursue the matter, to modify the proposal to make it acceptable.
As my noble friend will be aware, the inspectors who conducted the 1992 public inquiry into the NGC's applications for a new transmission line in Cleveland and North Yorkshire recommended against consent being granted for two of the five proposed routes in their entirety, and against consent being granted for parts of each of the remaining three routes. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated in his provisional response to the NGC that he was minded to accept the inquiry inspector's recommendations on this point. That is why further inquiries are currently under way into possible alternative routes for those sections of the line which the inspectors did not like.
At this point I intended to spell out in a little more detail the history of the project. But, bearing in mind the hour and the time—I am sure that noble Lords are fully aware of the facts—I propose to leave out that part in order to answer more fully some of the points that have been raised. There have been queries about the need for the new line. The inspector's 1992 inquiry in fact considered a number of options presented by the NGC for maintaining the security and stability of the grid system, as required by the terms of its operating licence. This was in the light of the new source of generation by Teesside Power Ltd, exports from Scotland through the recently upgraded Scottish Interconnector and expected future growth in generation. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade agreed with the inspectors that none of these options is as economically attractive as the proposed overhead line. He will consider carefully any new recommendations which the inspectors at the current inquiry may make. But he must confine himself to legally relevant matters at the time.

1395
The NGC operates an integrated transmission system which is of benefit to all parts of the country. The inquiry inspectors took the view that this particular line was needed for the NGC to maintain its system to the standard required under the terms of its operating licence. In his letter of 12th May 1994, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade accepted that, while a single circuit line might be sufficient for immediately foreseeable needs, the double circuit line which has been applied for would not only minimise any need for further reinforcement in the future but would also enable NGC to comply with its statutory requirement to encourage competition.
On the subject of security standards of the grid system, it is currently the position that the NGC has a temporary derogation from the normal security standards as required in its operating licence. On the question of whether this derogation should be made permanent, Professor Littlechild, the Director General of Electricity Supply, has recently said that he was not convinced that it would be appropriate to change NGC's planning standards at this stage. He added, however, that he would keep the matter under review during the development of NGC's transmission service activities and the review of NGC's transmission price controls. This advice, published by OFFER on 24th February, is available to the inspectors at the current inquiries. Above all, it has to be appreciated on this subject of security standards that overhead line proposals must be considered by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in the light of standards as they exist at the time his decision regarding consent is taken.
The view has also been expressed that the Government should be actively encouraging the building of new power stations near to where the power is required. The Government believe that choice of location, along with other matters such as choice of fuel and indeed the timing of new capacity, is a commercial matter best left to the companies concerned. That choice will then be subject to detailed scrutiny in the consent process. Issues relating to the impact of a proposed generating station on the particular locality are then key matters for consideration by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, before deciding whether or not to grant consent and deemed planning permission.
It is important that companies are given correct pricing signals about the cost of locating in particular areas. The predominant power flows on the transmission system are undeniably north to south and this is now reflected in the clear cost signals given to prospective new generators by the use-of-system charges introduced in April 1993. While higher charges for use of the grid system were continued for generators in northern zones, payments rather than charges were introduced for generators in southern zones. The objective was for a greater share of the costs of transmission reinforcement to be borne by those generators whose developments have brought about the need for it.
All infrastructure involves long-term investment, and transmission is no exception. Companies cannot afford to base their appraisals on short-term considerations. At the 1992 inquiry the inspectors considered whether new
1396
developments in superconducting cables would provide an alternative to the overhead line. They concluded that superconducting cables were not commercially available or proven and were not a practical option at present. If there is new information about need or options which has become available since the first public inquiry, it is right that that should be put to the inspectors at the current inquiry. It has always been made clear that new material would be fully considered.
The proposed overhead line would cost about £½ million per kilometre The cost of underground cable providing the same capacity would be about £12 million per kilometre But cost is not the only disadvantage of underground cables. It takes much longer to find and repair faults on underground cables and thus increases substantially the time the circuit would be out of service. Furthermore, they preclude most forms of development on large swathes of land and also put limitations on the use of such land for agriculture.
On the question of whether power station proposals should take full account of the environmental implications of consequential and related transmission requirements, this is not regarded as a matter legally relevant to the decisions of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on NGC's current applications. Where a power station developer is also proposing to construct overhead lines connecting to the National Grid, it would of course be a requirement on him to include an assessment of those lines as part of his assessment of the power station project. But this was not the case here. As the inquiry inspectors acknowledged, the proposed new line will serve the needs of projects other than the Teesside power station. I do not believe that it would be reasonable to require the developer of an individual power station to provide the necessary information for the environmental assessment of further developments which are only partly influenced by his own project. That would impose unreasonable demands and cause considerable delay for applicants.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I find that remark astonishing. The noble Lord says that he does not "believe". Is he saying that that is a matter of law or a matter of his judgment? It would seem to me obvious that if you are building a power station, the question of how you get the product to market has to be answered. That has a community aspect and we ought to answer it in terms which are convincing to the community. Is he saying that I am wrong because it is a matter of law that does not arise or for some other reason?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the key characteristic here is that where you have a power station which has to lock into the National Grid, that itself is clearly part of the project which is under consideration. Where the ramifications of the joining of the power station to the grid in conjunction with other things that might happen elsewhere in the future might have an impact on other parts of the grid, that is not a matter to be taken into account at the original planning permission stage.

1397
Current procedures, under which individual developments are considered as separate applications, operate satisfactorily. I do not concede that there is any need to change them.
I recognise the importance of combined heat and power. It is the Government's policy to encourage combined heat and power and combined heat and power is growing. But it is a commercial decision for operators whether to operate in this way and where they want to locate. ENRON is operating a station in a combined heat and power mode. The maximum supply to ICI has been 380 tonnes per hour of steam, which is roughly half of ICI's total requirements, with the minimum being 80 tonnes per hour. Even if ICI does not require steam, the link is used for 50 tonnes per hour just to keep it in operation and good condition. The electrical efficiency of the plant is a little over 50 per cent, but when running on full steam output to ICI that rises to over 90 per cent.
The majority of those who have made representations to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, either in correspondence or through the inquiries and hearings, have expressed concern about adverse health effects. In particular, the public is concerned about health risks as a result of studies published in other countries concerning a possible association between electromagnetic fields and cancer.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade can only take into account the most current and authoritative evidence, including advice from the Department of Health and the National Radiological Protection Board, which is available to him at the time he makes his decision. This applies in the case of any overhead line decision and such decisions are being taken every day.
The National Radiological Protection Board's current advice is that it has considered all the available information and has concluded that the evidence does not establish that exposure to electromagnetic fields is a cause of cancer, although it does provide some evidence to suggest the possibility exists, which justifies moving forward with research. The significance of an
1398
epidemiological study depends, among other things, on the strength of the association, the presence of a dose-relationship, supporting experimental evidence and a credible biological explanation. These tests for causality are not satisfied for a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer and the NRPB do not therefore recommend the adoption of quantitative restrictions on human exposure to electromagnetic fields. Should the NRPB's advice change before my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade reaches any decisions on this project, he will of course take the new advice into account.
As I indicated, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has yet to receive and consider a number of reports by independent inspectors on different aspects of this project. Indeed, some of the inquiries have not yet finished. He is also obliged to consider any relevant new evidence which he receives before he makes his decisions. Equally, he cannot take into account other matters. If he takes into consideration any such new evidence or new matter of fact which disposes him to disagree with recommendations made by any of the inspectors, he must, under the relevant rules of procedure, give the parties involved an opportunity of asking for the reopening of that inquiry.
I should like to conclude by assuring my noble friend and the House that no decisions on the various individual applications before my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be taken until he is satisfied that he has all the information before him to enable him to take that decision properly, and that he will take all relevant matters into account. Furthermore, as the House will realise, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade cannot take a decision which will in any way restrict his discretion in relation to any other decision.
I am sure that we all agree that this debate has been helpful. I thank all those who have participated and contributed and in particular my noble friend Lord Crathorne for raising the subject for debate.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.

  UN Convention Against Torture: UK Report
  UN Convention Against Torture: UK Report
  Barristers' Fees from Legal Aid
  Barristers' Fees from Legal Aid
  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Nuclear Weapons Policy
  Nuclear Weapons Policy
  EU Budget: Transfers of Appropriations
  EU Budget: Transfers of Appropriations