Sitting of 7 February 1996

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

  Horticulture
  [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1994–95, on Horticulture (House of Commons Paper No. 61–1 and -II), and the Government Reply thereto contained in the Fourth Special Report of Session 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 778).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  9.34 am
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The Agriculture Committee is deeply honoured to be the first Committee to take advantage of the new procedure, which you, Madam Speaker, kindly approved, to allow Select Committees more time to debate their reports. All of us on Select Committees agree that the former arrangements were totally unsatisfactory, particularly when hon. Members and people outside the House give up so much of their time to give evidence to our Committees, and it is a tragedy that we do not have more time to debate them. This is only the third debate that the Agriculture Committee has had in the past seven years.
  We published our report on horticulture last August, and it shows that, despite the problems that the horticulture industry faces in the United Kingdom and the relatively low common agricultural policy support that it receives, horticultural holdings in the United Kingdom employ almost 10 per cent. of the agricultural labour force. Some 60,000 people, including farmers and their wives, work on holdings where horticulture accounts for more than two thirds of the total standard gross margin, and that figure does not include the substantial number of seasonal and casual workers who are employed at harvest and other busy periods. Nor does it account for those who work further up the food supply chain and those who work in the ancillary sectors.
  We were left in no doubt that, in some parts of the United Kingdom, horticulture plays a role in the local economy that is much understated by mere employment statistics, and it is fair to say that the substantial attendance at what, for Parliament, is an early hour to debate what appears on the face of it a somewhat dry subject demonstrates that hon. Members recognise the importance of the industry to their constituencies. We held our inquiry at a time when the fortunes of some sectors of the UK horticulture industry were, and, I am afraid, still are, at a low ebb. A snapshot of the industry when we made our inquiry shows the problems that it faces. There has been an on-going, long-term decline in horticultural production in the United Kingdom; the value
  248
  of output has been falling; and horticulture's share of total agricultural output has also declined. Despite rising output per hectare, due largely to technological advances, incomes have also been in decline.
  In addition, and perhaps amazingly, the United Kingdom runs a substantial and growing trade deficit in fruit and vegetables, which in 1993 reached £2,818 million. Even when produce that cannot be grown in the UK is discounted, there is still a substantial trade gap, and all that despite the fact that per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables in the UK is among the lowest in the European Union and is less than half the amount consumed in some of the southern member states.
  We paid some visits during the inquiry, and in Almeria, southern Spain, we were astounded by the results of a latter-day "gold rush", where what was once a wilderness has been transformed into a highly productive and low-cost nursery, with not just acres or hectares but what seemed to be square mile after square mile of plastic sheeting spread along the coastline. Those vast, cheap, makeshift greenhouses, with the aid of irrigation water from the aquifers beneath, produced peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers and numerous other salad crops, all of which are transported throughout the European Union.
  In Holland, we saw similar crops being grown in more elaborate and expensive systems under glass, but we should bear in mind the favourable arrangements that the Dutch created for themselves to supply gas to heat those greenhouses. Although the Dutch, like many producers in the UK, fear Spain's low-cost producers, the Spanish are concerned that there may be increasing penetration of their markets by even lower-cost producers from Morocco.
  Little can be done about the climatic advantages for the salad crop producers whom we visited in Spain, although it is clear that Almeria is an environmental eyesore that would not be allowed in the UK. Nor can UK apple growers expect to benefit from the growing conditions prevalent in South Africa and other southern hemisphere countries. Even so, the UK could benefit from many aspects of the horticultural sectors that we saw in Spain, Holland and South Africa, not the least of which was the organisation of their marketing systems.
  The UK has the most developed retailing systems in Europe and probably the world. The major multiples are taking a larger and larger share of the retail market, and their central purchasing and distribution systems give importers relatively easy access to outlets capable of handling large volumes of produce. It would be wrong to assume that the supermarkets are the only outlet for produce—others include independent retailers, market traders and the catering sector—but the major retailers are the potent force in the market, eager to give their customers a variety of fresh fruit and vegetables at a competitive price.
  It was frustrating to hear supermarket buyers speaking of the ease with which they could purchase produce from an importing nation's growers, frequently by dealing with a single point of contact. That, we were told, is not the case with the sales of UK produce, whether it be for the domestic market or for export.
  Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that that might be the general picture, but that, in a region such as west Cornwall, local growers are

  249
  making strenuous efforts, through co-operatives and marketing organisations, to produce exactly what the supermarkets want? The number of new pack houses that have opened in the past couple of years is testimony to that enterprise. Should not their example be followed in other parts of the country?
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Needless to say, I agree with my hon. Friend. The supermarket buyer who wants to buy 10 tonnes of a product can lift a telephone and be sure of getting the quality and quantity that he wants from many of those foreign countries' marketing agents. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the British industry, large gaps still exist in our marketing system, which have been obvious for many years. Having been a farmer and worked among horticultural growers, I know that they are, by their very nature, an independent bunch. It is extremely difficult to get people to co-operate in this country. There must be a sacrifice, but when it comes to it, too often people pull out. They will not take the strain when things are difficult.
  During our inquiry, we received numerous suggestions as to how the UK industry's performance could be further improved at home and abroad. In particular, we were eager to ensure that Ministers argued strongly for reforms to the European Union's fruit and vegetable regime which would not disadvantage UK producers. Other changes, however, are needed in the horticultural sector, as the Committee report's conclusion and recommendations show.
  Not the least of the problems that we identified was the lack of reliable statistical information on the UK's horticultural sector. We asked the Government to discuss with the industry the means by which information can be collated and disseminated, and pointed out the need for the Government to encourage the European Commission to ensure that similar information on the horticulture industry throughout the EU is available. The Government accepted those recommendations and we should be grateful for further information on their implementation.
  Of course, any industry requires skilled people to work in it and, although much can be learnt through training while in employment, it is also important that people entering the industry have access to suitable courses. The Committee asked the Government to keep a weather eye on that, to keep local education authorities aware of the need to maintain funding for discretionary grants in that sector at appropriate levels, and to consult employers in the industry on the most suitable content of courses. That recommendation was also accepted by the Government. We made it because, in these days of stringency in education, we found that it was easy for such authorities to drop horticultural courses from their syllabuses. We wish to put up a marker that that will be damaging for the industry in the long term.
  The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should take a lead in exploring ways by which the wholesale marketing system, which faces many difficulties and a declining market share, can be rationalised. During our inquiry, it became obvious that an increasing number of retailers and producers are trading directly with each other. The Committee welcomed the new producer contracts that were being introduced by Tesco, which gave its suppliers
  250
  greater security. We recommend such initiatives to all producers and retailers in the hope that it will help to stem the growing tide of imported produce.
  We also hope that retailers will realise that they will benefit from working with producers in funding near-market research, thus helping to ensure that UK customers are able to buy the type of produce that they wish from UK producers.
  We were also concerned that the UK was not performing well in export markets. We urge the Government to investigate ways by which producers could be encouraged to explore and exploit the opportunities presented by the single market for their produce. We were pleased that, following our report, MAFF appointed a horticultural export promoter, seconded from industry, and to hear news of the establishment of the Horticultural Export Bureau. That bureau appears to be a direct response to our recommendation that horticultural exporters should establish a representative organisation to co-ordinate export strategies. We still, however, hold the view expressed in our report that the redirection of Food From Britain's role away from import substitution was misconceived: for fruit and vegetables, import substitution will be by far the most effective way to reduce the trade deficit.
  On the fruit and vegetable regime, although in 1996 the cost of support for both fresh and processed regimes will amount to only less than 4 per cent. of the total common agricultural policy budget, it will still amount to about £1,252 million. What is more, much of the expenditure is to "withdraw" produce that is not wanted by the market. Many producers in southern Europe grow their crops solely for withdrawal. Withering criticism of the regime is contained in the 1994 European Union Court of Auditors report, which described systems for inspection and approval of producer organisations by member states as very weak and found many irregularities in the withdrawal of produce from the markets.
  We were generally dissatisfied with the withdrawal system's operation, but its effects are especially damaging to the UK apple industry. The Committee was keen for the Government to pursue their policy to end the system completely for all fruit and vegetables. With that in mind, it is a disappointment, as many people have already noted, that the current proposals for reforming the fruit and vegetable regime do not give a final date for the end of the system, but simply make it slightly less attractive. The Committee's report made it clear that there would be distinct advantages to UK apple growers from ending the system completely. It is unacceptable that producers in some member states produce apples for no other purpose than sale into intervention.
  We were also made aware of the way in which UK producers are disadvantaged—and would still be at a disadvantage under the new proposals—because of the way in which producer organisations are defined. The British horticulture industry has played little part in the creation of surpluses and it would be iniquitous if it was disadvantaged simply because of historical differences in the industry's structure in the UK. The definition of a producer organisation should allow for a variety of legal and commercial entities. I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on that.
  Our recommendations have been echoed by the European Communities Committee in the other place and by our Select Committee on European Legislation,

  251
  a formidable phalanx of informed parliamentary opinion. I call on the Government, who have shown their support for those views, to stand firm when the European Commission's reform proposals return to the Agriculture Council.
  Besides the European marketing regime, we received evidence about other inappropriate and burdensome regulations. I stress two main problems, the first of which is the ridiculous and unscientific European Community proposals to impose maximum nitrate levels on spinach and lettuce. As originally suggested, those would have had devastating effects on the British lettuce industry, yet there is no scientific evidence that nitrates are harmful to human beings.
  The Commission's original proposals have been relaxed, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that the revised standards are achievable by British growers following good agricultural practice, and represent the best possible compromise. None the less, I still ask what the scientific basis is for having maximum nitrate levels at all.
  Secondly, horticultural producers often have trouble getting hold of appropriate pesticides, because of the expense and delays in pesticide registration in the United Kingdom. Partly because of what we heard in our horticultural inquiry, we subsequently held an inquiry into the Pesticides Safety Directorate, and we are glad to report that much progress has been made in reducing backlogs in pesticide registration.
  However, problems still exist concerning "minor use" pesticides—those used in small quantities, especially in the horticulture industry. We were disappointed that the Government did not adopt one or two recommendations for streamlining the system that we made in our horticulture report. I hope that they will keep the matter under close review.
  I shall not detain the House much longer, but our report also dealt with the mechanisms and funding for horticultural research and development, recommending in particular that reforms of the funding and accountability of the Horticultural Development Council be considered. For example, we found that much of its money was going towards research into pesticides, which should have been funded from other budgets.
  We recommended that the Government should divert some of their applied research funding towards joint funding of near-market research with the HDC. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on any progress that has been made. We are glad to see that MAFF has retained sponsorship of Horticulture Research International—the option universally supported by those who gave evidence to us.
  Finally, I shall tell the House about a large mushroom farm in my constituency. The Irish Government's market development fund was misused to establish a mushroom industry in Ireland that progressively strangled our mushroom business, and the company in my constituency has now been sold to an Irish company. The loss to the original owner is quantifiable and should be assessed. It should be the Commission's duty to ensure that repayment is made to the original owners, who suffered from the direct and unfair competition created by the Irish Government.
  Madam Speaker, I repeat my gratitude to you for arranging our procedures so as to allow horticultural matters to be aired in this way. I understand that the
  252
  procedure requires the approval of the Minister and myself if any other hon. Member wishes to intervene, so I make it clear that anyone who wishes to intervene has my approval to do so.
  9.52 am
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me, and I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) for his all-embracing courtesy. I welcome the opportunity to debate a Select Committee report in the Chamber. After all, an awful lot of work goes into producing such reports, apparently for little return, sometimes.
  The difficulty of the investigation resulted from the immense diversity and complexity of the horticulture industry, and the consequent variety of difficulties reported to the Committee. None the less, underlying the investigation were three important factors that occupied our attention.
  The first was the trade deficit in horticultural produce, and the scope that that offers for substantial import substitution, which could do nothing but good for our national economy. In that context, I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that the shift in the responsibilities held by Food From Britain was regrettable, although one welcomes the efforts to put something in its place, in the form of the export bureau.
  The second main issue is the relative labour intensity of the sector, with its potential for job creation, its seasonal nature and all the implications for horticultural training. Thirdly, there is the capacity of the European Union, while responding to pressures from its widely varying regions, to blunder into regulations that could damage some growers in this country—and no doubt, at times, in other countries too.
  The proposal to impose an illogical upper limit on nitrates in lettuce was of particular interest to me, as it would have wiped out many lettuce growers in my constituency and in other areas, notably Cambridgeshire. I was heartened by the united front against the proposal presented on both sides of the House and by the United Kingdom scientific community—an approach also embraced by the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  I was grateful to the Committee for its energetic questioning on the nitrates issue. My colleagues on the Committee will be glad to know that the Lancashire lettuce growers whom they met have had a good year. Mr. Keith Ball, who runs Lovania Salads and formed the Solfresh marketing group in Tarleton and Hesketh Bank, is one of my constituents whom they met. Last month he won the national salad grower of the year award for the quality of his produce, and he tells me that this year his firm will produce 300,000 boxes of lettuce.
  The nitrate threat has not completely gone away, but at least the immediate threat has been allayed. I hope that the Ministry and its Ministers will keep alert, to ensure that the issue does not become a serious threat again.
  I shall touch briefly on two or three other matters raised in the report, the first of which concerns employment and training. There is much anxiety about developments in horticultural training in recent years. The Committee's recommendations on the subject were pretty bland, simply asking the Government to keep a weather eye on the

  253
  matter and keep it "under close review". But the Government could not even go along with that fully, declaring that
  "The Government has no locus to intervene in those decisions"—
  that is, decisions on discretionary awards.
  The take-up of specialist horticultural courses depends, of course, on discretionary awards. Although it is rather outside the scope of the debate, it is important to know that discretionary awards represent one of the aspects of local education authority spending that have been most brutally cut in recent years. Because the awards are non-statutory, obviously they get clobbered, along with other non-statutory education provision. In my county, as with many other local education authorities, the provision has been cut to ribbons.
  Local authorities naturally concentrate such awards as they can still afford on students attending local further education colleges, often at the expense of specialist colleges. As the awards shrink in size and number, the problems of specialist colleges are increasing. The example of the Welsh college of horticulture at Northop in Clwyd has been brought to my attention. This year it may not offer any full-time courses in edible cropping at all, and may have to close its glasshouse production unit because of the lack of grants for students to take up places there.
  Horticulture workers are in general the lowest paid in agriculture, and they have the least security of employment. Despite that, unlike the agricultural community as a whole, several of the groups whose representatives we interviewed opposed the retention of the Agricultural Wages Board.
  That reveals an interesting problem. Seven-day opening by the supermarkets over the past year to 18 months, plus the moves by big retailers to buy more British produce and offer greater security to growers, which we must welcome, should mean a welcome increase in jobs in the horticultural sector. However, those developments also mean seven-day working, and employers in horticulture, both in growing and in packing, are reluctant to pay premiums to their workers to cover the seven-day regime.
  One fact uncovered by the Committee's investigations in the preparation of the report was that the flexibility allowed by the 1993 changes to the Agricultural Wages Board secured much of what employers wanted in the way of flexible rostering, but also brought some safeguards for workers. Nevertheless, many employers, especially in mushroom growing, use casual labour at weekends to avoid premium payments. I make no point, at this stage in any case, about employment practice, save to say that the AWB arrangements seem to be both adequate and flexible in regard to the problems and I fully support the Select Committee's recommendations.
  The Select Committee also considered representations from the industry about foreign workers. I understand the concerns about the potential use of eastern European casual workers to undermine UK casuals or even permanent workers. However, the National Farmers Union's evidence in particular clearly pointed to the need for more foreign student labour in horticulture during the summer, especially in the south-east. Foreign students form a particular and circumscribed group of about 4,000 workers, the use of which is worth reconsidering. Casual
  254
  labour among United Kingdom students in European horticulture and viniculture is a long and valuable tradition, and if we can maintain it and at the same time help the horticulture industry by expanding such labour, it can do little but good.
  The horticulture industry, specifically vegetable and salad growing, which most interests my area, exists— I hope thrives—without much help, subsidy or grant. Nevertheless, the industry requires Government help from time to time. It cannot, for example, completely sort out the problem of discretionary awards and training. National and local governments must do that.
  On an entirely different subject, but continuing the theme of Government help, the Committee noted when it visited the Almeria region of Spain that there was enormous investment in renewing the irrigation system— paid for, as far as we could tell, by the regional government, which was helping growers to compete more effectively with UK and other European growers, and to try to extend the season. By a remarkable coincidence, the following summer in Britain was the most drought-ridden on record. People involved in the industry in my area feel very strongly that there should be grant aid or a taxation incentive to encourage the increased provision of water storage facilities and water preservation and recycling systems in anticipation of global warming causing more and more wonderful, hot, dry summers. It is a serious point, because people waste much water and the horticulture industry is no exception.
  It seems odd that the Government have decided to withdraw from the European Union processing and marketing fund from 31 March, years before the expiry of the original deadline. English growers might be seriously disadvantaged in comparison with other EU states, and Scotland and Wales, where I understand the fund is to continue. It is hard to see how that decision coincides with the Government's desire, which I am sure we all share, to correct the trade deficit in fruit and vegetables.
  Since I come from an area with an extensive glasshouse industry, I also urge the Government to take a much more positive stance on the Committee's recommendation that the glasshouse industry should be exempted from any possible energy tax from Europe. Historically, our glasshouse industry has been disadvantaged, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned, by artificially lower energy prices for glasshouses in Holland. A similar or greater disadvantage should not be allowed to recur.
  Should the wholesale market experience the severe decline that has been forecast, large supermarkets would enjoy a type of monopoly that would damage the horticulture industry. I therefore urge the Government to take a more proactive role in the rationalisation process than their response to the Committee's recommendation suggests.
  The potential for the horticulture industry is immense. At present, it employs many workers. The Transport and General Workers Union estimates that there are 36,000 workers, of whom 16,000 are casual. I agree, however, with the view that its contribution to the economies of many areas such as mine is out of all proportion to the number of employees. The sector is extraordinary for its relentless hard work and apparently infinitely flexible enterprise. In recent years and usually in partnership with supermarket chains, it has become the centre of exciting research and development, which is dramatically

  255
  improving the quality, yield and taste of its products. The standard of many products, such as tomatoes, is capable of challenging produce from much more favoured areas of Europe.
  The trade deficit in fruit and vegetables remains at about £3 billion, and much of what we import can and should be grown and processed in this country. To enable our businesses to make strong inroads into that deficit, the Government do not have to play a strong interventionist role, but should be nudging and tweaking the system in ways identified by the Committee and the industry, such as continuing their level of support for Horticulture Research International; bringing on and off-label approvals more into line with most of our EU counterparts at the speed that they seem to be able to organise such things; reconsidering some of the planning obstacles to development, especially in green-belt areas and for horticultural haulage firms, which have particular difficulties with planning regimes; being more proactive in helping to make the marketing system more efficient— the single contact point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, the Chairman of the Committee, mentioned—and negotiating the redefinition of producer groups to allow for grant aid, where it is available, to EU co-operatives. By such relatively small means, the Government could reap huge economic dividends and help the revitalisation and growth of rural areas.
  The Select Committee has done a good job, if modest. All its recommendations should be pursued by the Government with some vigour and urgency.
  10.7 am
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and his Committee and congratulate them on an extremely well-researched and valuable report. I am glad that our new procedures give us the opportunity to debate it. I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the imperative need for radical steps to be taken to stop the grotesque wastage of European Union taxpayers' money in horticulture, and indeed the wider agriculture sector.
  Like other hon. Members, I have had the good fortune to be able to travel fairly extensively during the years that I have had the privilege to serve in the House. In doing so, I have found that one place only in my constituency is known around the world. It is known in the deep recesses of the African bush and, as I found out only last month, in the huge terraced hill sides of the cultivatable parts of Nepal. Unhappily, that one place is not either the town of Tonbridge or the village of West Mailing, from which my constituency takes its name, but the East Mailing research station, as it was called until a few years ago. The East Mailing research station is Britain's premier research establishment in the fruit sector—both soft and tree-borne fruit. Over many decades throughout the century, it has built up an unrivalled reputation for excellence that extends around the world.
  It was, I suppose, inevitable that when the Government came to office in 1979—committed, in my view rightly, to examining the public sector across the board and to asking what functions that had been carried out by the public sector should continue to be done in that way in the future—an establishment like the East Mailing research station should come under scrutiny. That scrutiny took place during the 1980s, a time of considerable difficulty and near trauma for the research station and its staff.
  256
  At the end of the period of uncertainty, there emerged Horticulture Research International, resulting in a great deal of reorganisation, restructuring, staff changes, and changes in the research programme at East Mailing. The outcome was generally regarded as satisfactory, as it produced the continuation of the research establishment with a new focus on the requirements of the horticulture industry. The decision was strongly supported by the industry—a fact that emerged in the Select Committee's report—and the establishment continued under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Having been through that long and difficult period of uncertainty in the 1980s, the staff at East Mailing not unreasonably hoped and expected that there would then ensue a period of stability and certainty, during which they could continue to build on their remarkable reputation for research and excellence. Sadly, that hope has not been realised so far in the 1990s.
  A report on the matter was produced by the Cabinet Office's efficiency unit. I have no doubt that that unit has made many recommendations in the interests of efficiency, but that was not the case in 1994, when it recommended that the research establishment be treated as a branch primarily focused not on agriculture and horticulture, but on pure science. The unit recommended that the sponsorship of the establishment be transferred from MAFF to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
  I was delighted that the Select Committee report threw out that recommendation, and I was equally delighted when the Government—in responding to the Committee's report—also threw out that recommendation. Having disposed of the uncertainty engendered by the Cabinet Office, further uncertainty has now been created by the Government's exercise called the prior options review, which extends to some 40 or 50 Government or Government-sponsored research establishments in different sectors.
  News of that further review—not surprisingly—was greeted with great dismay by those who work at East Mailing. We all know that a premium is attached to the continuity of personnel in research establishments, because they are all "people places" where the people involved are fundamental to the value that can be obtained from the establishment's activities. Continuity and certainty are of primary importance. I am not a great horticultural expert, but I believe that if one picks up a plant by its roots, shakes it around and puts it back in the soil, and then redoes that several times, it will not be wholly conducive to the plant's growth. I would suggest to MAFF that that is true also in the case of horticulture research establishments.
  I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister comes to make his own recommendations under the prior options review exercise—as he is due to do next month—he will have at the forefront of his mind the critical need to maintain stability and continuity at East Mailing. I earnestly hope that he will decide to leave unchanged the new status of the East Mailing Research Establishment within Horticulture Research International, and that its sponsorship by MAFF will remain.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on the specific point that he makes,

  257
  although I am sure that there is wide sympathy in the House for it. I do not have his knowledge of the East Mailing research station, but I agree that it is important that continuity is maintained in such research establishments.
  I share the view of other hon. Members about the value of the report from the Select Committee. We are all grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and his colleagues not just for the succinct and effective way in which the Committee covered the subject, but for the succinct and effective way in which the Committee Chairman introduced the report, which will enable a number of hon. Members to speak in what would otherwise have been a short debate.
  I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you share my nostalgia for the days when one knew when a particular product came on the market—for example, the first asparagus, the first strawberries, the first Cornish early potatoes or daffodils from the Isles of Scilly. Sadly, those days have to some extent gone. I think that we have lost something, as we now get very little seasonal, or even regional, variety. We can have almost anything at any time of the year.
  One of the lessons that I hope that we take from the Select Committee report is that careful sourcing of local and regional products by major buyers could reintroduce an element of the previous system to good effect, with an element of freshness, variety and speciality that many of us would relish. It is not just old 'uns like me with my nostalgia who would enjoy that.
  The whole issue of sourcing in horticulture is complicated. Clearly the Select Committee has taken great care to obtain the best possible advice on the matter, and we should listen to the recommendations. I saw some figures recently giving the distance travelled by the average vegetable to arrive at a supermarket in the midlands. It is literally hundreds—sometimes thousands—of miles, depending on the particular vegetable and the time of year. The traditional market down the road actually sells fresh fruit and vegetables that have usually travelled less than five miles. The contrast between the sourcing policies of independent traders and big multiples is very stark, and that discrepancy needs to be attended to if we are to deal with the question of import substitution that I believe is rightly at the heart of the Committee's report. I shall come back to that matter in a moment.
  We all know that horticulture is exceptionally sensitive to the time of day or year and to climate. Today, somewhere out in the snow, someone will be reckoning on whether it is worth pulling up or picking vegetables. At any time of year—despite the weather—people are having to think carefully by the hour, and even by the minute. Therefore, pressure on the growers is intense. I echo the point that has been made about the ingenuity, enterprise and sheer hard work that those involved in the industry must put in to make a reasonable living against difficult competition.
  In those circumstances, we must also be sensitive to the continuity and security of a contract that a grower may get by supplying to a big supermarket chain. The other side of the coin is that that security may lock the grower
  258
  into a long-term relationship that he may find extremely difficult to break if it becomes necessary to do so. The most secure contract of all was the slave contract. Some growers regret very much the extent to which they are locked into particular organisations.
  The report refers, as did the chairman of the Select Committee today, to the need to make sure that our producer organisations are not mistreated, ill treated or unfairly treated by the rules and regulations that may emerge from the European Union and the Council of Ministers. I agree, but we also have much to learn from our competitor countries in the EU in respect of the co-operative principle. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said before he left the Chamber, we in Cornwall have moved in a small way towards some effective co-operatives. That is also true in other parts of the country.
  The core of the Committee's report is the contrast between its advice and the advice of the Government on import substitution. It is apparent from the report that the Committee took most careful evidence from a huge range of extremely well-informed organisations. After exhaustive inquiries, the recommendation of the Select Committee is specific. It is that the reorientation of Food From Britain towards export promotion is misguided and that the organisation should be much more concerned with import substitution. I believe that to be true, and I believe that the industry does, too. Many of us are disappointed that the Government in their, albeit short, reply to the report have not dealt with that specific and well-based recommendation. I hope that the Minister will expand on that matter.
  Of course import substitution and export promotion are not mutually exclusive. That is acknowledged in the report, but paragraphs 88 and 89 make a good case for the issue to be most thoroughly reviewed in the light of the most recent advice. The report states that we should not simply rely on previous views, evidence and data. I hope that the Minister will at least tell us today that Food From Britain is to be commissioned to carry out an appraisal of the advantages of reorientation along the lines suggested in the Committee's recommendation. Such an appraisal should, of course, take into account what would be cost-effective. If reorientation in the longer term necessitates some increase in resources to make the organisation more effective, I hope that that will also be possible.
  One issue is not touched on at any length in the Committee's report, but it is extremely important in many parts of the country. The amount of casual labour used in the industry has been referred to briefly. A substantial proportion of the labour is casual. The treatment of casual labour for the purposes of social security benefits causes a considerable problem in many parts of the country. It is one of the difficulties that face many vegetable growers in Lincolnshire. It has been a long tradition in Kent that casual labour provides the hop growers with their main source of assistance. In Cornwall we have had major problems in recent years, especially in the flower fields.
  One must bear it in mind that in many of the areas to which I refer not only does horticulture provide great employment potential but there is high joblessness and women in particular find it extremely difficult to find part-time work. It is important that we try to find a way out of an absurd mare's nest of red tape. I am sure that that concern is shared throughout the House.

  259
  We must also arrive at a simple system that prevents fraud as far as humanly possible. We all know that there has been fraud. My experience and that of the National Farmers Union is that the complexity of the present rules encourages rather than reduces fraud. Therefore, we must find a simpler system. At present, if a picker in Lincolnshire, Kent or Cornwall does some short-term picking because the time of year or the daylight hours or the nature of the crop—as in the case of early daffodils— make that possible, just one day's picking may exclude that individual from days and days of not only direct unemployment benefit but everything else that goes with it, such as housing benefit or council tax benefit.
  The result is that a young woman, for example, whose only employment may be picking finds it impossible to take up that employment. The regulations have forced local labour out of many pickers' fields. As a result, many growers have perforce had to rely on gangmasters from other parts of the country or even other parts of Europe to provide gangs of pickers. That cannot be a sensible solution. It is damaging to local employment prospects.
  I have made representations to the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment, as it then was, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I note from the report of the horticulture committee to the annual meeting of the NFU yesterday that negotiations between the union and the Department for Education and Employment have continued for months and months, but small progress is now being made. I hope that the Minister might be able to give us some examples of what is intended.
  The NFU suggested a simple pilot cheque book scheme. I understand that that was ruled out for one reason or another, but somehow we have to make it easier for local people to give their casual labour. Otherwise, an all too sad sight in Cornwall in the past couple of years will recur year after year. Last March, I found myself driving past a wonderful golden field full of daffodils in full flower. That was a disaster. It might have been good for the tourists coming down to Cornwall for an early spring holiday, but it meant that some grower had lost his whole crop. When I asked why, I was told that it was because the grower could not get local pickers for love nor money because none of the local people could afford to do the job.
  It would be the most appalling example of failure to deal with import substitution if we had more and more fields of Cornish daffodils in full flower and the Welsh had to import their daffodils from overseas for St. David's day.
  10.26 am
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Time permits me to intervene only briefly. I do so to congratulate the Select Committee on an excellent report. I read it soon after leaving ministerial office last August and I found it interesting and extremely knowledgeable.
  I am interested to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). He speaks with some knowledge on horticultural matters. He represents a good chunk of the area to the south of the Ribble, adjacent to my constituency. I shall inherit four of the wards that he now represents under the boundary changes. In addition to my existing constituency activities in glasshouse and vegetable cropping, I will take on some of the growers
  260
  whom the hon. Gentleman represents. Like him, I know about horticulture from my experience in South Ribble. I also know about it from when I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and had responsibility for food.
  I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the Irish mushrooming operation which sends vehicles all the way through Northern Ireland to come across to this part of the United Kingdom, with all the consequences to which he referred.
  I am impressed by the quality of the activities performed by the growers in my present and future constituencies. They are a remarkable bunch, as my right hon. Friend said, and an independent bunch. They work extremely hard at all hours of the day and night and different periods in the year to produce the food that we need. I am in the process of carrying out a survey among all the growers in my constituency and nearby to find out what their concerns are. The House will not be surprised to learn that many of the points which the Committee investigated are dear to their hearts. We have heard about the import substitution argument. Certainly, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire will confirm, the problems relating to the import of Spanish and Moroccan tomatoes, nitrates in lettuces and what growers perceive as unfairness about what they call the unlevel playing field— the growing industry in Europe—require that something must be done about them.
  I am sure that the report will provoke the Government to do what I know my hon. Friend the Minister has begun to do, and what his predecessor, my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was doing, and fight our corner strongly in Europe to ensure that the growing industry in Lancashire, about which I am concerned, and in other parts of the country, is protected and developed. The capacity and potential of the industry is enormous. If it is properly treated by the Government and by the European Union, its ingenuity and its capacity for hard work, new marketing techniques and exploiting new varieties of crops is such that it can build on its reputation as the best producer of those crops in this country, as well as in the rest of Europe and even further afield.
  I am pleased to be able to speak about horticulture and add my congratulations to the Committee for an intelligent, exhaustive report to which the Government's response has so far been so good. There has been unanimity across the House on the matter. If the unanimity of commitment to the industry continues, I suspect that the growers in my present and future constituency will have cause to thank the Select Committee for its report and the Government for their response.
  10.30 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Tucked away in paragraph 95 of the Select Committee report, students of development and agriculture will find an especially interesting passage on which I should like to comment. The Committee states:
  "we consider that the EU can provide substantial assistance by judicious relaxing of the terms of entry for South African exports of horticultural produce: whether by association with the Lome Convention or under a separate trade agreement. Any such agreement should be absolutely dependent upon conditions assuring that no disruption is caused to EU markets, taking account of the

  261
  [Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours]
  respective marketing seasons of European and southern hemisphere produce. There may also be advantages to British agriculture in freer trade with South Africa".
  I quote that because, during the inquiry, which I joined quite late on, we visited South Africa—in somewhat controversial conditions, if I remember rightly.
  There was an important underlying characteristic to our visit. While we were there to consider the implications for British horticulture of developments in South Africa— we examined its extremely efficient single-channel system for marketing its products—some of us went with the additional agenda of examining what was happening in South African agriculture and horticulture after the major political changes there. I concluded, as did some hon. Members of all parties, that, to some extent, horticulture held the key for development in South Africa.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and I visited Khayelitsha, a township of some 700,000 people outside Cape Town in the middle of the area in which the South African deciduous fruit industry is based. While we were there, we were given a little document, which stated:
  "Today Khayelitsha is the fastest growing residential area within the greater Cape Town area. Current projections put the population at one million by 2000."
  Current estimates give the population as some 700,000 in an area of only 6,500 acres. That is the nature and scale of the problem in South Africa. I cannot describe the conditions that existed in that township, but we know that South Africa has huge potential for horticultural development as long as markets are opened up worldwide and it is given the access that it requires.
  Unless we are prepared to open up markets—and in particular the European Union market—to the products that can come from South Africa when they are out of season in the European Union, and unless there are parallel developments in other parts of the South African agriculture and horticulture economy, there will inevitably be trouble again in South Africa. We have it in our hands in the European Community to bring about those changes.
  In paragraph 95 of the Select Committee report, we comment:
  "South Africa is also seeking the closest possible association with the Lomé Convention: the European Commission has been mandated by the Council to negotiate possible South African membership of the Convention and, in the longer term, a free trade agreement. COPA/COGECA has fiercely resisted this move, claiming that the EU's processed fruit and vegetable sector might face extinction."
  We have a choice to make: either we concede on that front and the developed nations of the world—especially Britain, in the context of Europe—argue the case for greater penetration of our markets by South African produce, or we pay the inevitable price in future.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, over the years, Britain has been very interested in doing trade with South Africa and, in Europe, we have led the cause for improving the conditions of that country? Is not the stumbling block, as we have heard already in the debate, the other European nations?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is absolutely right.
  262
  I should like to take up my point in a future debate, perhaps on development. I understand that we are short of time. I shall resume my seat, having put my case that we should open our eyes to what is required.
  10.36 am
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I also congratulate the Select Committee on producing this excellent report. Unfortunately, because time is so limited, I must confine my remarks to certain aspects of the proposed new EU fruit and vegetable regime and to research and development.
  The Minister knows the strength of feeling in Britain about the EU's spending taxpayers' money on buying certain surplus crops and then destroying the bulk of them. That scheme has led to massive fraud and overproduction. The Select Committee was right, when talking of apples, to recommend that the Government pursue vigorously their policy of ending all fruit and vegetable withdrawal payments. When the Commission made proposals for reform in August 1994, they were greeted as a step in the right direction. The Select Committee supported the Commission's proposals to reduce withdrawal prices to an uneconomic level over a four-year period and wanted the eventual abolition of withdrawals. The Government agreed with that.
  One major difficulty for British growers has been that payments are made only through producer associations, of which there are fewer in Britain than elsewhere. For that reason, the Select Committee made the important recommendation that producer organisations eligible to receive money should be defined so as not to leave Britain at a disadvantage. That was agreed by the Government.
  To sum up the Select Committee's position, it wanted an end to withdrawal payments, supported making them uneconomic over a four-year period and, if taxpayers' money was to be scattered around, wanted it to be easier for British growers to get their hands on some of the loot. That is what it wanted; what it got was another matter entirely.
  Their credibility in Europe being nil, the British Government achieved nothing in the discussions on the proposals studied by the Select Committee. If anything, they went backwards. The draft Council regulations on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and in processed fruits and vegetables, adopted by the Commission on 4 October 1995, were extremely disappointing from the British point of view. They were a complete let-down for British producers and consumers, to say nothing of the taxpayer. That general view is expressed in the report, dated 19 December, of the Select Committee of the European Communities in the other place. The report said that, in the evidence of witnesses:
  "Aspects of the proposals were welcomed as steps in the right direction but the overall tone was one of disappointment that there was no signal of the end of withdrawal and criticism of the proposal".
  The Committee concluded:
  "the perpetuation of the intervention system and the enhancement of the role of Producer Organisations … are not … the right way forward."
  Hon. Members should read that report to understand how matters went from bad to worse between the communication of August 1994 and the draft regulations of October 1995. First, the proposed transitional period had been extended from four to five years. Will the Minister tell us how the Government allowed that to

  263
  happen? Secondly, the withdrawal system may be extended by a proposal to allow producer organisations to use funds to buy in produce that is not covered by the intervention scheme. Thirdly, to quote the report:
  "None of our witnesses have been convinced that the reduction in the level of withdrawal compensation by 15 per cent. over five years would reduce the compensation to a non-remunerative level."
  How does that leave our Select Committee report? Its recommendation, which has been accepted by the Government, was:
  "We support the Commission's proposal to reduce withdrawal prices to an uneconomic level for producers over a four-year period and would like to see the eventual abolition of withdrawals."
  As the proposals have become regulations that will, during a five-year period, reduce the payments—but not, in the view of informed witnesses, to uneconomic levels—is it any wonder that people feel let down? The position in relation to producer organisations is, if anything, worse.
  In the original proposals, the Commission laid down that, to be able to receive payments, producer organisations must effectively market a high percentage— 80 per cent.—of the marketable produce of their members. Although British producers thought that 80 per cent. was far too much, the percentage was raised to 90 per cent. in the draft regulations. Worse still, the producer must place 90 per cent. of his total—perhaps varied—produce with a single producer organisation. How on earth did that happen? Even imagined benefits are disappearing under re-examination.
  Witnesses in the other place expressed concern that the destruction of good produce will continue under the proposed regulations and that, despite the creation of a corps of inspectors, massive fraud will continue. That would be a disgrace. The Minister and his colleagues must do better in looking after our interests in the negotiations on the draft regulations than they have in the discussion on the communication.
  I should like clarification on one other matter. In paragraph 29 of their response, the Government question the Select Committee's support for the creation of a forum, which would include growers, customers and scientists, to debate the research strategy for horticulture. The Government have said that they intend to build on existing mechanisms that give a clear focus on priority matters and bring together the key players. In his reply, will the Minister explain what he has in mind?
  When I recently visited the headquarters of Horticulture Research International, people there clearly said that they do not want to face any further changes as a consequence of the prior options review. As they see it, their work is well focused on an industry with a clearly defined mission, and it is going well. They argue that the organisation is already close to being privatised or quasi-privatised and they want to avoid losing key sites and work to other organisations.
  I am sorry that there is insufficient time to do this report justice. I only hope that some of the Select Committee's drive and sense of purpose will rub off on to this feeble and ineffectual Government.
  10.44 am
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell):
  I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important issue on the Floor of the House. I am also honoured to be
  264
  the first Minister to take advantage of the new arrangements to debate Select Committee reports, even if—as some hon. Members will know—it means missing the start of the annual Bramley and spoon race that may even now be taking place on College green. With luck, and because of our arrangements, it may be possible for us to be, metaphorically, in at the kill.
  I am extremely grateful to the Select Committee for its efforts in producing a wide-ranging and considered report on an extremely diverse industry, for the tone of its report and of this debate and for the understanding that has so far made it possible, in a short time, to accommodate seven hon. Members. That has been extremely encouraging.
  I thought that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) put it extraordinarily well when he said that the Select Committee has done a good, if modest, job. It occurred to me that that was a motto that one could properly apply to horticulture as an industry: it does an excellent job and it does not make a fuss about it. Its achievements should be acknowledged and problems should be actively and sympathetically considered.
  Mr. Harris: In relation to the problems facing the industry, my hon. Friend is of course aware of the great concern in west Cornwall about Dutch seed potatoes, which are probably infected with brown rot. I have heard reports that what growers had feared has happened: the potatoes delivered to at least one farm have been found to be infected with brown rot. Will my hon. Friend comment on this situation? It is a very important point.
  Mr. Boswell: I must acknowledge that the situation is serious, and growers' concerns are understandable. The Government supplement the tests that already take place in the country of origin, the Netherlands, with our own, both of which are drawn to the attention of the European plant health authorities. As a result of those tests, out of 300 samples, we had suspected infection in one case of stock. We have now confirmed that it is brown rot and the potatoes are being destroyed. We shall continue to exercise the utmost vigilance on the industry's behalf.
  As hon. Members have raised so many detailed matters of concern, I shall endeavour to reply briefly to as many of them as I can. If anything has been overlooked, we shall certainly take account of what has been said in the debate and, if appropriate, reply in correspondence. I am anxious to get on with the major points that have been made.
  The introduction to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) clearly encapsulated the report and the main matters of interest. He was concerned about the organisation of marketing systems, about which I shall say a little more later in relation to the domestic situation. He was also concerned about reform of the European Union regime. He was concerned about nitrates in lettuce—a matter that also exercised Conservative and Opposition members of the Agriculture Committee. We have worked very hard to achieve an acceptable solution—we have introduced some changes in the European approach and a derogation for our growers in terms of domestic trade. We shall continue to work on that matter, and scientific evidence will have to be produced for a continuing restriction to be justified.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned his concern about the Irish mushroom scheme, the market development fund. The House may be interested to know that approximately

  265
  85 per cent. of the moneys that have been improperly paid out have already been recovered by the Commission. Any compensation to individual growers appears to be a matter for private law between the grower, the Commission and the Irish Government. If I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend about that.
  My hon. Friend mentioned one of the report's major recommendations about the improvement of statistics. We have certainly taken that issue on board. We must find a balance between making them not too intrusive, but as effective as possible. At the European level, we are discussing the issue with Eurostat.
  Lest we overlook them, it might be useful if I deal with the two recommendations of the Select Committee which the Government felt unable to accept, and to which hon. Members have referred. The first relates to funding for Food from Britain, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned. Three years ago, we carried out an independent review that took evidence from a wide cross-section of the industry and considered all areas of activity. We decided, broadly, that the Food from Britain initiative should concentrate on exports. That approach has been successful. While the Government continue to provide funding of £5 million per annum, the level of funding from industry is also increasing—it rose by 17 per cent. last year. That would suggest that industry endorses what is being done and that the new focus is appreciated.
  In view of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I should make it clear that a specific interest in the Food From Britain initiative is speciality foods. Perhaps with a little ingenuity, his local growers could involve themselves in that sector.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: We understood that Food From Britain had been asked to focus on value-added products as opposed to fresh products. The Government were criticised for their response to the Select Committee in that they had not made such a request. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether that emphasis on value-added products has now been put on Food From Britain?
  Mr. Boswell: There is a clear interest in the export of food and drink, which is handled by my ministerial colleague. I shall reflect on the question and give my hon. Friend a considered reply on Food From Britain's exact current remit.
  The Government were unable to accept the Committee's recommendation about pesticides— on notification to growers ahead of the type of problems that we encountered with organophosphates in carrots. We understand growers' concerns, but we have an obligation in the interests of food safety to release information as soon as possible to all those with an interest who may have a need for it. We have been considering the possibility of giving a day or so's notice to allow interested parties to prepare a considered response. Hon. Members will be familiar with the type of arrangements that apply through the usual channels in this place, but we must find the right balance to meet the occasion.
  I was interested in the tenor of today's debate in relation to employment and training. As one who used to be a practitioner in horticulture, I understand the
  266
  importance of a labour force. The Committee referred to the possible exclusion of horticulture from the Agricultural Wages Order 1994, but it would be for the Agricultural Wages Board, under present legislation, to alter the structure if it so wished.
  The main concern has been about seasonal workers. In relation to United Kingdom workers and those from the European Economic Area, there is no difficulty establishing who is working here. Seasonal workers from outside the Community are covered by the seasonal workers scheme. We have recently announced some changes to that scheme, which I hope will make it more flexible. We continue to discuss it with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall expressed some concern about the employment of casual workers from the United Kingdom. He will be aware, as he rightly said, that it is a problem as much for the benefit structure as for the tax structure. I have no definite news to offer him or the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) except to say that discussions continue at a technical level. Their concerns will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Departments and will reinforce our efforts to reach an acceptable solution.
  Hon. Members will be aware of my previous involvement in further and higher education. I have seen both sides of the argument and I can assure the House that, even if I have no direct locus in the discretionary awards, which are as they are described and the responsibility of local authorities, that does not mean that this Minister does not take a keen interest in a satisfactory resolution of some of the problems that have been identified.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Using his knowledge, and his friendship with Baroness Chalker, will the Minister bring home to her the need to ensure that aid to South Africa for education, in particular about horticulture, is channelled where it will benefit black students and not just white ones?
  Mr. Boswell: I shall bear that point in mind. The Government broadly support liberalisation of trade with South Africa and are therefore able to agree with the terms of the Select Committee's recommendation, which contains a number of important safeguards for British growers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his genuine concern about a matter that concerns many of us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare advocated—as does the report of the Committee of which he is Chairman—a more effective system of marketing top fruit. In many ways, the Committee's considerations have proceeded in parallel with those of the Government. We have, therefore, been able to agree readily with the Committee.
  We have been able to make a number of structural changes in relation to the English Fruit consortium and the work of the Fresh Produce Consortium, which goes rather wide of the work of English Apples and Pears. Much is happening to meet the difficulty of local sourcing. I am also aware of the concern about imports of soft fruits from east and central Europe. A trade interest exists and we need to have proper discussions to ensure that trade is not disrupted. We look for a proper measure of liberalisation in the adaption of the European agreements.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend say something about the state of the wholesale markets? It is

  267
  important that choice should be available within marketing arrangements so that produce from this country is not just sold through the big supermarkets but is available to independent traders and caterers. The Strathclyde report made some recommendations, but does my hon. Friend agree that a catalyst is needed to bring about necessary and ordered change in the wholesale market sector to ensure that better hygiene standards, better quality and a better service are delivered to its customers?
  Mr. Boswell: Some of those recommendations are a matter for decision by the trade itself. A new code of practice will be introduced on hygiene. It would be possible to promote the wholesale markets. We cannot, however, provide the resources centrally to do that; the initiative must come from the trade, but we will offer it our encouragement to restructure.
  Mrs. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend must forgive me, but I cannot give way. I may respond to her question in more detail later.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) mentioned the European context. Of course we believe that the present regime is wasteful. We do not believe that the Commission's current proposals for reform are satisfactory. The hon. Lady did something of a disservice to the Government by suggesting that we have not resisted those proposals vigorously. It is precisely because we have resisted them vigorously that we have not settled for anything. Substantive negotiations are about to start and we will argue the interests of British growers and the British taxpayer, which in this case happily coincide, vigorously and firmly. Our argument will be reinforced by today's debate.
  I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said about East Mailing research station, and I endorse his remarks about its quality and excellence. We must take research seriously; that is one reason why we provided £42 million in capital funds to restructure Horticulture Research International. We cannot avoid the need for a review from time to time to get the best possible value for the taxpayer, but the points that my right hon. Friend made so eloquently will be taken into account in forming opinions in our prior options review.
  The whole House should acknowledge our debt to the Select Committee for a very constructive report. It has done a service to the House and reflected the horticulture industry, which deserves acknowledgment and serves the nation well.
  10.59 am
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have but one minute to thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for contributing to the debate. We have all learnt a good deal this morning, not only about horticulture but about our procedures. I am sorry that not all hon. Members who wanted to speak could get in, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate the report. I hope that other Select Committees will be able to take advantage of this procedure, as we have this morning.

  Employment Creation (Northern Ireland)
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of Session 1994–95, on Employment Creation in Northern Ireland (House of Commons Paper No. 37-I and -II) and the Government Reply thereto, published as the First Special Report of Session 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 642).]
  11.00 am
  Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Select Committee's first report. A Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is a fairly recent innovation. Importantly, it gives us the opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the economic and social issues that affect Northern Ireland. All too often in the House we speak about the troubles in Northern Ireland, but other issues affect Northern Ireland in the same way as they affect other parts of the United Kingdom, and it is important to consider those issues thoroughly.
  Our first report was on unemployment, because we regarded that as profoundly important. The Committee was chaired by the late Sir James Kilfedder until his death in March 1995. Most of the report was completed under his chairmanship, and it is an appropriate time to remember his contribution. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) chaired the Committee for the remainder of the time before I became Chairman.
  We all wish to thank, not only the members of the Committee for the way in which they involved themselves in producing the report and their work since then, but the staff who service the Committee. The Committee is composed of 13 hon. Members, representing five different political parties, so it is very different from many Select Committees in the House of Commons, but it has worked well and focused on some important issues, which I anticipate that it will continue to do.
  We chose unemployment as the first issue because we regarded it as profoundly important to the people of Northern Ireland. We have known for a long time that Northern Ireland has specific serious problems in that respect. It is one of the poorest regions in the European Union—136th on the list of 179 regions—and the poorest region in the United Kingdom.
  One of the oddities about Northern Ireland is that the growth rate has been faster there than in other parts of the United Kingdom, even throughout the past 25 years of the troubles, so economic activity has been better than many people expected. It is important not to lose sight of that fact, despite the problems that we mention in the report.
  It will be seen in the report, and is common knowledge, that the public sector in Northern Ireland is disproportionately large. Given the circumstances of the past 25 years, that is to be expected, but about 32 per cent.—a third—of all employed and self-employed people in Northern Ireland work in the public sector. That is a large percentage.
  With the welcome ceasefire, we all hope that the need for spending on security will gradually decrease, but we make the important recommendation to the House and the Government that it is vital that the Government manage the decline in public sector spending. We cannot simply decide that we need fewer security guards and fewer people policing areas in the infrastructure of communities.

  269
  I remember, as many hon. Members do, the number of people guarding hotels who were employed by the hotels. With luck, that type of thing will no longer be needed, but it is not enough to withdraw those jobs and hope that those people find employment. We need some emphasis on retraining and special skills for people who leave such services, which have been vital. We owe a great deal to those people, so it is important that they are given the support that they need in finding new jobs and retraining.
  We drew specific attention to long-term unemployment because in Northern Ireland it stands out as an especially difficult problem. Fifty-six per cent. of unemployed people are unemployed for more than a year and 23 per cent. are unemployed for more than five years. That is a very large percentage, and 50 per cent. of unemployed people have no qualifications.
  In that context, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the pattern of work is changing. I hope that the Government will not assume that the fact that more jobs are being created solves the problem; it does not, for two reasons. First, long-term unemployed people need specific help and, secondly, employment is growing faster in part-time work than in full-time work. Nothing is inherently wrong with part-time work, but that has implications for the benefit system and implications for families, who often have lower incomes because jobs are part-time.
  Useful background reading to the report is Coopers and Lybrand's "Northern Ireland Economic Review and Prospects". The review says that
  "most of the increase in employment was in part-time jobs which now account for 30 per cent. of total employment".
  The pattern is no different from that in other parts of the UK and other parts of the western world.
  The changes that occur in other industrial regions when heavy industry declines mirror the problems of Northern Ireland. There are periods of long-term unemployment for males especially. Then part-time employment grows, linked to some of the new industries entering the region. There is a need to retrain people who previously worked in the shipyards, for example, and to encourage research and development so that the part-time jobs that are created are not only light assembly jobs without significant skill input. That is why there was a great welcome for the Daewoo plant that was set up in Northern Ireland, which has brought with it some research and development.
  There are many similarities between the economic problems and structural change that are evident in Northern Ireland and those that have characterised other parts of Britain—the north-east, south Wales and especially southern Scotland. In southern Scotland, the link between Edinburgh and Glasgow was vital in redeveloping an economy that, 20 years ago, had similar problems to those of Northern Ireland. Southern Scotland is now a major chip producer, producing about 80 per cent. of the chips in Europe. If we brought about similar development in Northern Ireland—especially if we used the link between Dublin and Belfast to build the new economy—the advantages to the people of Northern Ireland might be enormous.
  Another of our recommendations, therefore, is that the Government consider the infrastructure between the north and south so as to improve development in that area.
  270
  Six of the United States' mainframe computer manufacturers are located in the south of the island, but in Northern Ireland, where I believe that we have significant potential for chip development, hardly any work of that type goes on, which is a shame. We need that type of research and development.
  In parallel with that type of development, we should develop the infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Specifically—the right hon. Member for Strangford is very keen on this—the road to Larne should be developed. It is used significantly by exporters from Northern Ireland and from the Republic of Ireland, as we say in the report. Developing the infrastructure is very important.
  The relationship between the benefit system and the employment patterns that I described is vital in Northern Ireland, as it is throughout the United Kingdom. I have argued for many years that we need a system that recognises the fact that people move into and out of work with increasing frequency and makes it easier for them to do so without losing income and getting into debt, which discourages them from giving up benefits. The system should also recognise the part-time work factor. If the cut-off points are too severe, obviously people are disinclined to take low-income, part-time jobs that might otherwise be available. The report recognises that that is a national problem, and the Secretary of State and his Ministers have an opportunity to reflect that fact in general Government policy.
  The report refers also to the core skills needed by the unemployed. As I said earlier, 50 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland have no qualifications. That is a very worrying statistic because it means that those people do not have core skills. The Committee recommends that core skills should be developed in all training programmes.
  The Committee also hopes to examine the education system in Northern Ireland some time in the future. The Minister will know that, although the Northern Ireland education system has many good and attractive features, the more disadvantaged students are under-performing. The report suggests that the Government should spend money more effectively on disadvantaged students and on nursery education. Evidence gathered in the United Kingdom and in almost every other country in the western world indicates that spending on nursery education— introducing children to the education system at a fairly early age—is very beneficial to their later achievements in work.
  I shall be brief as a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. However, I must refer to the question of investment, and particularly research and development in Northern Ireland. I was pleased to note that, on page 10 of their response, the Government reacted positively to the Committee's concern about the low level of investment in research and development in Northern Ireland. I touched upon that point earlier. We believe that that investment must be targeted and the Government seem to share that view.
  I cannot over-emphasise the importance of targeted research and development. An economy that is on the fringes of the European Union and of the British economy must have the edge in research and development in order to put it ahead of the game. A few years ago when I was shadow Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland, I examined the question of agriculture and food

  271
  processing and packaging. It was clear that Northern Ireland had enormous potential in that area. The report also refers to that matter and it makes recommendations with regard to the role of the Department of Agriculture. There are considerable opportunities in the area of food processing and packaging in Northern Ireland, but it is an advanced technology which is becoming more advanced every day. I often wonder whether Northern Ireland could move into the biotechnology area, because it has the obvious base for that technology. Northern Ireland needs those high levels of research and development.
  I was struck by an interesting statement in the Coopers and Lybrand report. Although it does not refer specifically to research and development, it contains knowledge about investment generally. Page 28 of the report states:
  "There are no up-to-date data on actual investment spending patterns. The most recent numbers for the manufacturing sector come from the latest regional accounts data which give estimates of investment only up to 1993."
  Building on what the report and the Minister have said, I wonder whether we could make an effort to try to get a better picture of the investment pattern in Northern Ireland—in terms of not only total amounts, but of research and development. We do not want to see a repeat of what occurred in the late 1970s when international and national companies received considerable grants to establish their businesses and invest in Northern Ireland but then left during the slump of the 1980s. Virtually no infrastructure remained in place to provide work for those who had been left unemployed. We should have a more detailed look at the way in which the investment pattern in Northern Ireland is emerging, including the balance between industrial investment and research and development.
  I would like to refer to a whole range of issues in the report, but I promised to keep my remarks to less than 15 minutes so that other hon. Members can contribute to the debate. In conclusion, the people of Northern Ireland have their fingers crossed about the long-term success of the ceasefire—not least because they know that they deserve, and can achieve, a better life. Northern Ireland is a wonderful place, as everyone who has been associated with it knows, and its people are very good and very decent.
  We must recognise that Northern Ireland can have a normal, healthy economic development and that its people can enjoy above average quality of life. To achieve those aims, we must improve the economic conditions in Northern Ireland and improve the unemployment figures. Unemployment is a severe problem in Northern Ireland, which is one of the poorest regions in Europe and the poorest region in the United Kingdom. That is why the Committee's first report is so important and why we ask the Minister to respond to it today and to continue to address the problems that we have put before the House.
  11.14 am
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I support the speech of the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The Committee is a new venture for the House and it introduces to the people of Northern Ireland the same facilities that exist in other parts of the United Kingdom—a fact that is welcomed throughout Northern Ireland. The Committee took many years to establish, but it is now proving its worth.
  272
  This is the first report to emerge from the Committee, which commenced its work under the chairmanship of the late Sir James Kilfedder. He was my neighbouring Member of Parliament for the constituency of North Down. He was full of enthusiasm about the future success of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. In debating the Committee's first report, I place on record our appreciation of the leadership that he gave to the Committee during its first few months of deliberations.
  I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith for the way in which he has presided over the Committee's subsequent meetings. He and I have differences of opinion on many subjects—including social and economic matters and certainly about Irish nationalism—but we have managed to work together. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Committee comprises five political parties, including the two largest parties in the House and the three parties from Northern Ireland—the Ulster Unionist party, which is represented in the Chamber today; the Social Democratic and Labour party, which is represented by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady); and the Democratic Unionist party, whose representatives may be along later.
  The Committee addressed the question of unemployment, which is a major problem in Northern Ireland. When one hears that Northern Ireland is the most depressed area of the United Kingdom, one is led to believe that things are very bad in Northern Ireland. However, it is important also to place on record Northern Ireland's successes not just in the past 18 months since the temporary ceasefire began, but in the previous decade.
  As the report points out, in the past decade Northern Ireland has been more successful at creating new jobs than any other region of the United Kingdom. However, that has not had a significant impact on that country's unemployment figures because it also has the highest birth rate in the United Kingdom. I was amazed to learn that the birth rate in Northern Ireland is higher than that of Catholic Ireland—and that is saying something. No matter how successful we are at creating new jobs in Northern Ireland—we are particularly successful in that area—we must also contend with the greater demand for jobs as a result of the high birth rate.
  It is also interesting to note that Northern Ireland has a very good quality of life. Its educational achievements are great and its transport system is good. We used to talk about migration from Northern Ireland, but people are now moving there from other parts of Great Britain. Not only does Northern Ireland have a high birth rate but more people are coming to the Province than leaving it, creating a greater need for jobs than for many years.
  Energy costs in Northern Ireland are the subject of a recently published separate report from the Committee— rightly, because while the Province is subject to a monopoly control of electricity prices, it is under a great handicap.
  Transport is also of great importance to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has campaigned continually for the improvement of the A8 from Belfast to Larne harbour. No doubt he will dwell on that matter if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I want to emphasise that we referred to that road system regularly. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned, I stressed its

  273
  importance because only 5 per cent. of Northern Ireland trade goes to the Republic, whereas 95 per cent. goes to Great Britain. The road to Larne is twice as busy as the road to Dublin. A Government commitment to funding the A8 improvement scheme is a priority for the Province's infrastructure.
  Northern Ireland is also successful in education, with the best A-level results in the United Kingdom—as was again confirmed last week, when school league tables were published in the Northern Ireland press. The other side of the story is that the Province has the largest percentage of young people leaving school with poor qualifications, which contributes to longer-term unemployment. The hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned the need for proper pre-school and nursery education provision. That subject is dear to my heart because as someone who has contributed to Northern Ireland's high birth rate, with six children, I am aware of the lack of pre-school and nursery education.
  I hope that the £240 million of peace and reconciliation money being allocated by the European Union to Northern Ireland will be used properly, not foolishly. I have great fears and suspicions, as I watch how the money is being controlled at present, that some of that funding will disappear down the drain. If it were to be used properly, one priority should be the creation and provision of nursery education in Northern Ireland, which has the lowest level of such provision anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  Jobs are of course difficult to provide. Under the chairmanship of the late Sir James Kilfedder, the Committee visited South Korea. I personally travelled on to Taiwan. Although members of the Committee came from many different political parties, we demonstrated that we could work well together as a team in the interests of trying to help Northern Ireland.
  In Seoul, one could not but be impressed by the presence of the Industrial Development Board, its personnel and its acceptance in South Korea. I hope that I will not be speaking out of turn when I say that officials who represent the United Kingdom at various levels in Seoul were able to confirm that Northern Ireland's presence in South Korea is better than that of any other region of the UK, including Scotland. Seven South Korean companies have opened factories in Northern Ireland, and that investment is most welcome. When I went to Taipei, I was impressed by the IDB operation there. The Province has already attracted one firm, Hualon—but it has not yet arrived due to legal problems in Europe. I hope that every effort will be made by the authorities involved to expedite that matter, so that Hualon can make its decision to invest in the south and east Antrim area. The company has promised 2,800 jobs, which is more than the number of people employed in Belfast shipyard. That puts in its proper context that proposed major investment and provision of new jobs. If only we can get over the legal problems. I reiterate my hope that every effort will be made to assist that investment to be made as quickly as possible.
  One cause of concern in recent weeks was the Government's decision to reduce by 25 per cent. funding for the action for community employment scheme, which is mentioned at paragraph 254 of the Committee's report. ACE has been important in providing jobs for the young
  274
  and unemployed, and in creating a service in the community for less well-off people and those who are elderly and require assistance. Out of the blue, the Government announced a 25 per cent. reduction in ACE investment, at a time of high unemployment.
  One problem in the House is that when one tables parliamentary questions, it is difficult now to get answers from Ministers. I tabled two parliamentary questions asking why ACE funding had been reduced. On both occasions, the Minister refused to answer. Instead, he got the manager of the ACE operation to write to me. I was not asking about the way in which ACE was administered but about the decision to reduce its funding by 25 per cent. Ministers should not run away form their responsibilities. They decide Northern Ireland policy and they should answer for it. I deplore the new system whereby Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office— who are not elected by the people of Northern Ireland— refuse to answer in the House for their policy decisions. I place on record the all-party opposition to that 25 per cent. cut in ACE funding—which will be confirmed by the hon. Member for South Down and by the Democratic Unionist Members—when they turn up.
  Mr. Soley: If I may add to the right hon. Gentleman's armoury, I discovered yesterday that the Coopers and Lybrand report referred to the immense importance of the ACE scheme to local communities.
  Mr. Taylor: That emphasises my point. As we have not been able to obtain an explanation for that funding cut through parliamentary questions in past weeks, we would like one on the Floor of the House today.
  I conclude with a problem in my constituency that relates to the policies of the Northern Ireland Office and of the Industrial Development Board. Unemployment is worse in some areas of the Province than in others, and social deprivation in some areas is not equalled in others—so priorities must be set in terms of investment and jobs provision. However, the priority policy that is developed should not be used as a means of denying jobs to areas that are perceived as somewhat better off.
  I understand that the Northern Ireland Office and the Industrial Development Board have to carry out the policies of the Northern Ireland Office. Its policy objective is that three out of every four new jobs attracted to Northern Ireland must go to specific areas of deprivation. That is, no doubt, a worthy objective, but it places most of Northern Ireland at a disadvantage in getting new firms and jobs, because they are being concentrated in a smaller number of areas considered to have high social deprivation.
  My constituency of Strangford is not considered to be an area of social deprivation. It is considered to be one of the better-off constituencies in Northern Ireland. Yet if one looks at pockets in Strangford, one will find unemployment almost equalling the level of unemployment in the so-called areas of social deprivation. I think of villages such as Portaferry, Kircubbin, and Ballywalter and other villages in the South Down constituency, such as Killyleagh, which will soon come into the constituency of Strangford. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Down will agree that that is a good thing.
  The hon. Member for South Down and myself, being neighbours, have suffered alarming unemployment decisions in our constituencies in the past few weeks.

  275
  In my constituency alone, in the village of Ballywalter, the Ballywalter Clothing Company has closed with the loss of 150 jobs. There is no major employer anywhere in the Ards peninsula. That one factory provided employment for many people throughout the Ards peninsula, and now it has disappeared. In Comber, in my constituency, the Albion Clothing Company, which manufactured trousers, has closed down in the past week. Nearby—and many of my constituents are involved— Shorts has a major problem as everyone knows. There is the threat of the loss of 1,500 jobs, many belonging to my constituents in Strangford. This weekend, more of my constituents have lost their jobs—I hope for a month only, but we do not know—in the Killyleagh Spinning Company, which suddenly told all 150 workers that they would be off work for a month.
  All that is happening in a constituency that is considered to be prosperous, yet—I repeat—in places like Ballywalter or Killyleagh, there are very few other opportunities for employment. It is important that the Northern Ireland Office ensures that the IDB is given every encouragement to try to attract new industries to those rural areas, where there is no alternative manufacturing employment. Yes, there are jobs on the land in farming and agriculture that increase the level of prosperity in the constituency, but in the villages and smaller towns there are no alternative jobs. Those villages and towns must get equal and fair treatment from the IDB, compared with the so-called socially deprived areas of Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister of State, in his reply, to confirm that we will get fair treatment from the Government and from the Industrial Development Board, and that we will be not discriminated against in favour of other parts of Northern Ireland.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I wish to express my appreciation of the chairmanship of Sir James Kilfedder, the former Member of Parliament for North Down. He was a magnificent Chairman and a kind friend. I wish also to congratulate the present Chairman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who introduced the debate this morning, on continuing the even-handed and productive way of conducting the debate.
  The report touches on a wide variety of aspects of employment creation in Northern Ireland. It would not be possible in a few moments even to consider one facet of it in any depth. Employment creation is a multi-faceted problem, and even the in-depth discussions that the Select Committee has had only touched on some of the factors that contribute to employment creation and unemployment.
  During the inquiry into employment creation in Northern Ireland, we had the outbreak of peace. That created a new dimension and a new era for the prospect of employment creation—one that of course we all welcome very much. It will make the job of the employment-creating agencies that much easier to pursue.
  The outbreak of peace also had a further dimension, in that it enormously increased the expectation of people for a better way of life in Northern Ireland. The absence of violence has achieved that already, but other aspects of a better way of life include the social ones of a house and a reasonable job. The housing problem in Northern
  276
  Ireland is reasonably under control at the moment, but unemployment is not. Unemployment is still the greatest scourge that we have suffered in my memory.
  When I talk about employment, I mean employment with good conditions. I do not mean employment in a low-wage economy, in which the unemployed, because of their availability, are at the mercy of the would-be employer, whether indigenous or an inward investor. We should sell Northern Ireland not as a low-wage economy, but as an economy that has a very highly educated and skilful work force. We should sell it as an area where the highest quality of training can be provided in the shortest possible time, and where efficiency and quality make up for deficiencies in foreign products. We should not concentrate on being a low-wage economy, but be able to compete on the international stage in efficiency and quality.
  Much has been said in the past few years in Northern Ireland about fair employment, and legislation is currently in place and being reviewed to see whether it has the intended effect. There is a problem not only with the allocation of jobs, but with the location of jobs. That was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Strangford. He listed, quite rightly, some of the horrendous losses that have occurred in the recent past, including some in my constituency. I could not help but think as he spoke that, in my constituency, we could not have big losses because we did not have the jobs in the first place.
  An article in the local newspaper, the Down Recorder, last week gave the statistic that in the past decade, between 1985 and 1995, the number of unemployed increased by 40 per cent. When my constituents read the headlines about the peace dividend and a job bonanza, they wonder where those jobs will go. We are fairly certain that none of them has gone to south-east Ulster between Strangford Lough and Carlingford Lough. In that 10-year period, not one single inward investment job was created in that area. I could repeat the same sad story about infrastructure, which has also been totally neglected in that area. No inward investment jobs have been created in the area and there has been no job bonanza. That is not my interpretation of what I see around me, but the statistical results in parliamentary questions that prove beyond doubt what I am saying.
  One can adopt one of two attitudes to the problem. The first is to say that it is an accident of history; the other is that it is the result of deliberate policy. One of our local newspapers this morning carried an article about how the inward investor Sanchez (UK) Ltd. has been treated. It was to come into the area of Warrenpoint, where there is considerable unemployment. I do not know whether the problem was intentional or simply due to inefficiency.
  Down district, which I represent, has the second highest unemployment among the nine council areas surrounding Belfast. We have severe infrastructure problems, too. In South Down, the ferry that plies between Portaferry and Strangford is a disgrace; it will not sustain economic trade between the two areas. It was out of action for several days last week and it continually breaks down.
  I do not mean to be a dog in the manger, but we need a new approach to job creation and to the areas in which effort is concentrated.
  One of the great disadvantages from which areas such as south-east Ulster suffer is that they are always included in Government statistics in the Greater Belfast

  277
  travel-to-work area. In fact, unemployment statistics vary from 6.8 per cent. in Strangford—the lowest in Northern Ireland—to 22 per cent. in other areas. So the inclusion of high unemployment areas in the Belfast travel-to-work area statistics completely distorts the unemployment figures. It also means that areas of multiple social deprivation are not highlighted; they are merely camouflaged in the overall picture.
  I ask the Department to provide proper statistics, broken down into the natural units made up of the communities of Northern Ireland. I would also suggest a greater element of partnership between the Government, the job-creating bodies and the vibrant local industrial development bodies working with the local councils. That would be an invaluable and fruitful process.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: My hon. Friend consistently gives the impression that the job-creating agencies run by the Northern Ireland Office seem to neglect the peripheral areas outside the Belfast conurbation. Has he detected any improvement in their attitude recently?
  Mr. McGrady: Since the Committee's report to the Government and to the House, I have detected no change whatever. Of course I can speak only for my own area, but I believe that other areas are in the same situation. We seem to be recreating the Pale of the 16th and 17th centuries—this time not around Dublin, but around Belfast. Into this new economic Pale all good things go and nothing emerges for the peripheral areas.
  I also suggest that indigenous and inward investment incentives be graded and geared to provide more jobs near the areas of greatest deprivation. After all, that can be done in Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, so why cannot it be done effectively in Northern Ireland? We also need a redefinition of the so-called priority areas, to ensure that the real unemployment blackspots are more effectively helped by making them more attractive to investors. There is nothing to be ashamed of in providing jobs for those areas.
  The not-so-new policy of the Industrial Development Board and LEDU—the Local Enterprise Development Unit—of concentrating on developing companies with an exporting orientation is fine as far as it goes, but it does not help if a constituency has nothing to develop in the first place. It is impossible to develop the export sector, or the research and development sector, of industries in places where there are no industries. I therefore say that the IDB and LEDU must act more assiduously to create the economic conditions that will attract grant aid and make those places more attractive generally.
  I am talking about a change of tactics, a change of the grant aid structure and a change of the policy guiding industrial development—especially inward development.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to trade with the Republic which, as he stated, is running at only 5 per cent. of our total trade. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take some delight in that fact. I take no delight in it; it is a scandal that the two parts of Ireland are not trading much more to their mutual benefit.
  I cannot close without first mentioning the 25 per cent. budget cut for the Training and Employment Agency, announced on 11 December last. The effects of that cut
  278
  have percolated dramatically down into the action for community employment programme. I doubt whether the Government fully thought through the extent to which the effects would be felt, but the results of the cut for meals on wheels, care in the community, Barnardo's homes, Age Concern and cancer research will be considerable. It is sad that those most vulnerable sectors of voluntary work have been targeted, and that 3,000 jobs are due to be cancelled by a stroke of the pen that came out of the blue on 11 December last.
  The irony is that other Government Departments will have to pick up the tab. The services will still have to be provided, if not by the voluntary sector and the ACE programme, then more directly.
  No one has yet touched on tourism in this morning's debate, yet tourism development can be one of the quickest ways of creating jobs in Northern Ireland's economy. There have been huge increases in the number of visitors since the ceasefire of 18 months ago, but I do not detect any urgency about providing the much needed infrastructure to accommodate them. I am talking primarily about beds. The policy of the Northern Ireland tourist board seems very confused. Hitherto it has been creating 50-bed hotels, whereas local market conditions dictate a need for much smaller hotels of up to 15 beds. They can be built quickly and be ready, if not for this summer, then certainly for next summer's tourist trade. I therefore urge a radical rethink of that aspect of the board's policy.
  Many parts of Northern Ireland, including mine, have never had the privilege of massive job losses because we never had those jobs in the first place. That is an abiding local problem; and if there is any inequity in the approach to solving it, it must be dealt with and eradicated.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I start by adding to what has been said about the establishment of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, and about the important role played by the late Sir James Kilfedder. He was always enthusiastic and interested in all who served on the Committee, and was keen to get it off on a sound and effective footing. It is a pleasure to work on the Committee, and the current Chairman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who opened the debate, has continued the tradition of involving us all in the Committee's work.
  My right hon. Friend—I call him that advisedly— the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) spoke of the vigour of the Northern Ireland economy. It has always impressed me that, despite the difficulties in Northern Ireland, those in business there demonstrate such a positive attitude to achieving success for their companies and their economy. The Province provides an extremely attractive life style: it is a good place in which to live and work. I continue to be impressed by all the people whom the Committee meets, and from whom it takes evidence, who are involved in the Northern Ireland community and, in particular, its business life.
  The Committee has discussed small firms, and made recommendations. As in many other parts of the United Kingdom, the opportunities for job creation exist largely in the small business sector. Small firms form a larger proportion of the economy per head of population in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, and they are therefore

  279
  very important to that economy. A third of those firms are connected with agriculture, and manufacturing also relies heavily on small businesses.
  Northern Ireland's small firms are successful in themselves. The Province has a better record in that regard—a record of small business survival, as opposed to a high failure rate—than other parts of the United Kingdom. Small firms have problems, however, many of which relate to the difficulty of raising capital. We made that point in our report. The Small Business Institute had told us of the shortage of venture and development capital for small businesses, and we recommended that the banks should pay particular attention to the evidence that we had received. We felt that they could and should provide more support, within the constraints of prudent banking.
  We also focused on the need for training of managers and supervisors in small businesses—a particular interest of mine—and the relationship between such training and the readiness with which banks would lend to small companies. Banks' unease increases if they feel that they are being asked to lend to organisations which may have experienced a vigorous and energetic start-up, but which may be at risk as they grow because management is not trained to handle a larger business. The Government must give all the support that they can to ensure that training opportunities continue to increase.
  Cash flow and debt are also problems for small businesses in the Province, as in other areas. I hoped that the Government would legislate to allow those who do not pay their debts within a reasonable time to be fined. There has been considerable controversy about that in the past few days, and it is very relevant to Northern Ireland.
  The Committee found that small companies were also concerned about the burden of regulation, which causes them particular difficulties. Large companies have staff to deal with the regulatory framework; they can employ specialists, and they can afford to spend money on ensuring that regulations are followed. The job of small firms with five, six or 10 employees is to secure orders, to ensure effective accounting and, above all, to get the product or service out of the door and to provide customers with what they need. It is frustrating as well as expensive if they have to spend too much time dealing with Government regulation. We appeal to the Government to minimise that burden wherever possible.
  The role of LEDU is extremely important to the development of small firms. We felt that some of its procedures were confusing and lacked clarity; we strongly recommended the design of a format for a business plan for small firms that was acceptable and would be used by the multitude of agencies operating under the Government umbrella, often with Government support, rather than the present multiplicity of requirements.
  Reference has been made to the importance of inward investment, and the Committee's visit to Korea early last year. We were very impressed by the standing of the Industrial Development Board in South Korea: its work was effective, and has paid off in terms of investment in the Province. The Koreans told us that the board's follow-up work in helping their expatriates to settle in the Province was particularly effective. It is important for managements that are considering inward investment to know that their own people will not be left high and dry, and that help with education and housing, along with advice, will continue to be provided.
  280
  It is also important to improve education standards, allied to work requirements, at the lower end of the education spectrum. It was made clear to us that the qualifications and abilities of those leaving university in Northern Ireland were of a high order, and we saw evidence of that; but it was felt that, at the lower end of the spectrum, young people with minimal qualifications found it difficult to obtain jobs, and, even when jobs were available, the qualifications with which they left school were considered inadequate.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman share the serious concern expressed to me by many of my friends who work in voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland about the savage cut in the ACE budget?
  Mr. Wolfson: Given the importance that the Select Committee attached to maintaining that budget, that cut is regrettable. However, the Select Committee also said that the content of the work needed review. It is important that such money should be spent and focused in the most effective way.
  I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a short intervention in the debate and I look forward to further opportunities in the Select Committee to monitor the work of the Department and how it spends Government money.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) next. I emphasise the need for hon. Members, if possible, to attend the whole of a debate.
  12.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall not make a speech—I shall simply make a few points so that another hon. Member may have the opportunity to speak before the Front-Bench spokesmen.
  I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Select Committee's first report. I hope that those who were concerned that the Select Committee might result in some sort of revolution in Northern Ireland now see that it can do a useful job for the people of Northern Ireland. It makes more accountable not only the Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland, but the Departments and the civil servants.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the late Sir James Kilfedder. He played a significant role in the formation and the early days of Select Committee, in particular in the report on employment creation in Northern Ireland. The subject chosen by the Select Committee for its first report was clearly considered to be a priority. I suppose that, as with most Committees beginning their work, the report grew like Topsy. We went wider and wider and ultimately had to draw a line under it and bring it to a conclusion.
  The significant factor that formed a backcloth to the Select Committee's considerations was the two ceasefires and the resulting change in atmosphere for business. No one would deny that there was a considerable peace dividend for business in Northern Ireland, although it was not long before we also realised that there could be a significant peace deficit.

  281
  Jobs in Northern Ireland attend the violence—glaziers who put in new glass after bombs, the construction industry that replaces buildings, the security firms that guard the companies throughout the Province and, most particularly, the security forces themselves. Jobs would be lost as a result of the peace, just as jobs would be gained. Of most concern was the fact that jobs that would be lost would be lost much quicker than they could be replaced by new ones being brought into the Province. Firms quickly reduced their security levels. Jobs such as those filled by men doing searches at the door were lost instantly and the task of filling the gap was considerable.
  During the past few months in Northern Ireland, there has been a new drive and energy not only among those in Government Departments who are seeking jobs but in the business community itself. That augurs well for the future.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman knows Northern Ireland a great deal better than I do, but can he confirm that I was right during the negotiations to get the impression that sometimes terrorism was being used as the reason for non-investment when peripherality might have been the cause of the problem, and that will remain and will need to be addressed even if the peace process becomes permanent?
  Mr. Robinson: Undoubtedly a number of ingredients are to the disfavour of Northern Ireland, and peripherality is one. Members of the Select Committee well recognise that many business men will sit back for a long time in order to ensure that peace has a permanency about it before they invest in the Province.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to Sanchez. It was a sad fact that a firm considering investing in Northern Ireland was invited to meet representatives of the IDB in a restaurant's bombed out car park. That did not seem a sensible decision. Nor was it sensible to leave them stranded there afterwards. However, putting that to one side, we saw a much more helpful IDB, particularly, as was mentioned, in South Korea. Most of us were impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the IDB staff in South Korea—their organisation and personnel left a good impression on the Select Committee.
  It would be wrong of me to fail to take the opportunity to point out that no matter how hard the IDB and others may work in trying to bring jobs into the Province, if some of the core jobs in Northern Ireland were lost, the Province would have a difficult time recreating them. I think particularly of Shorts in my constituency. If 1,500 jobs in Shorts were to be lost, it would take the IDB and LEDU a long time to replace them. As economists tell us, a further 1,500 jobs rely on those jobs in Shorts, making a net loss of 3,000. The impact of that would be on such a major scale that the Minister responsible for industry in Northern Ireland needs to be on the ball, as I know that he is. It is vital that the Government do everything possible to ensure that Fokker stays in business in some form and that the contracts are maintained.
  One thing that the IDB and LEDU lack is some type of performance indicator that would enable us to see how well the IDB was doing—whether the targets are being properly met and how good is the work rate. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that, if not now, certainly in the future.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Improved cross-border transport and the development of cross-border business and trade are often projected as a means of reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland, but the benefits that will flow to the Province as a whole, and to the Irish Republic, by upgrading the Larne-Belfast road do not receive the emphasis and attention that they merit.
  We resent the political decision made some time ago to pour money into the Belfast-Dublin road. That is traversed by only 8,500 vehicles daily compared with 16,000 vehicles through Larne. Last year, 1.9 million passengers travelled through the port of Larne. Cars, caravans and freight transport increased. The relocation of Sealink from Larne to Belfast has not had the dramatic impact that some predicted. That has been largely compensated for by the introduction of additional ferries by P and O.
  It is frustrating that higher priority should not have been given to the A8. We do not accept the most recent fudge of all—a suggestion that the Department of the Environment will look into providing passing opportunities along the road. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must secure the funding necessary to extend the existing dual carriageway from Gingles corner. That was promised to start in 1997. At the very least, we should complete the dualling to Ballynure where the road diverges and traffic moves towards the airport and county Antrim. It is significant that Corr's corner was the chosen location for Hualon, which may still produce up to 2,000 jobs for us.
  I am impressed by the work that has been done by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Its report on employment creation highlighted problems and difficulties but identified the positive advantages for foreign investment in Northern Ireland. The Committee's visit to South Korea was constructive and identified why Northern Ireland is attractive to foreign investors. We must continue to highlight the matters that it identified.
  The use of Korean nationals as representatives for the IDB in Seoul has proved itself, and perhaps similar use of foreign nationals should be made elsewhere. The staff there were identified as being very competent. Northern Ireland was perceived by Korean firms as being a good place to invest because of the excellence of the work force and the benefits of close links with the United Kingdom and, indeed, with the European Union, where there are opportunities to market. There are 50 million people in the United Kingdom and 350 million in the European Union, whereas the Irish Republic market is limited to some 3.5 million.
  The welcome that is given to overseas people by people from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland was recognised as very genuine, warm and welcoming. Praise was heaped on the IDB for the aftercare provided to new companies, ensuring that there were suitable facilities for their personnel, their workers, and, above all, for the excellence of our education system, with opportunity for the children of those who remain permanently to move on to our excellent universities. The success of South Korean companies in Northern Ireland has opened up a path for other Korean companies to follow. They heard the good news by word of mouth.
  I reiterate the tourist board slogan, "You will never know unless you go", and now is an excellent time to do so. With the prospect of permanent peace, I suggest that

  283
  similar initiatives by the Chairman and his Committee to visit overseas locations from which we have been able to attract foreign investment could be of great benefit. Will the Minister tell us whether much attention is paid to Select Committee reports and whether it would be a good investment and make good sense to develop cultural and sporting links with South Korea?
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about the late James Kilfedder.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the members of his Committee on an excellent report, and I add my welcome to it. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who has said that the report highlights the crucial need to free unemployed people from poverty traps by easing the transition from welfare into work.
  The report is concerned about the level of bureaucracy and lack of openness and co-ordination in Government Departments. It seeks new measures to help Northern Ireland's businesses to develop, market and export their products. It sees the advantages of ensuring that all three and four-year-olds have access to quality nursery education, and it calls for better targeting and monitoring of public expenditure.
  There is little time for me to respond to many of the comments made in the report, and I am sorry that some hon. Members have not been called to speak in the debate: given the issues involved in the report, a much longer period is needed to do justice to it.
  I shall comment on the rationale behind the report itself: the high unemployment in Northern Ireland, especially long-term unemployment. I appreciate that unemployment is at its lowest level for 14 years, at about 11.4 per cent. The key factor, however, is that some 55 or 56 per cent. of Northern Ireland's unemployed are long-term unemployed—that is, longer than one year— and 23 per cent. of them have been out of work for more than three years.
  As a number of hon. Members have said, qualifications are crucial. We are told by the Government that unfilled vacancies are at record levels in Northern Ireland. I take on board the comments that have been made about part-time working, and I shall speak in a moment about benefit traps, but it is obvious that measures should be taken to bring the long-term unemployed back into employment. One such measure is the action for community employment programme. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to all-party opposition to the cuts in ACE, and I add my voice to that.
  The report reflects on some of the criticisms of the ACE programme: it is short term; jobs last for only one year; the employment offered is sometimes low grade; and it has a limited training aspect. But the programme did address the problem of the long-term unemployed, which makes it all the more surprising that the Government have decided to cut it by some £12.5 million and implement cuts of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent., despite the fact that the community work programme, which the Government hope will replace the ACE programme, is still only a pilot in three areas. Cuts to the ACE
  284
  programme will displace 3,000 placement jobs for the long-term unemployed, and 200 permanent management jobs.
  The Government argue that the CWP is a better approach as jobs are for a longer period—three years— and it has an enhanced training element. I remind the Minister that it is a pilot scheme, but the cuts in ACE are happening now. Community programme schemes are chosen according to whether unemployment in a particular area is high, whereas the ACE programme takes a proportion of long-term unemployed in each district, so assistance is spread more widely in the ACE programme. A number of people are on record as complimenting the ACE programme on its success. The Training and Employment Agency is on record as saying that it believes that the ACE programme is one of its most successful.
  It has been mentioned that some of the cuts are disproportionate. For example, job placement for the Ulster wildlife trust amounts to 38 per cent., despite the fact that 51 per cent. of participants go on to full-time employment or education. That compares favourably with any training scheme, whether it be in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, training schemes deliver full-time jobs to some 30 per cent. of people who complete the courses. I suggest that the Government reconsider the cuts, particularly the targeting of resources.
  The report highlights the fact that job creation in Northern Ireland is above the average of the United Kingdom or the European Union, yet there is a record number of unfilled vacancies. The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the high birth rate in Northern Ireland, and the report gives that as a reason why Northern Ireland must achieve a high rate of economic growth, and fill the vacancies.
  There is also a benefit culture in Northern Ireland, whereby people will not move from benefit to employment and must be encouraged from long-term unemployment into jobs. The benefit and tax system must adapt to that need. Tax and benefits systems must be in place in Northern Ireland, to encourage people away from benefits and back into secure employment. We have to move away from benefits and poverty traps. One way to do so would be the minimum wage, as proposed by the Labour party. When I mentioned that to the Belfast chamber of commerce recently, it raised no objections, but even that would not make any impact on the number of unfilled vacancies.
  The Government's response to the report refers to the Northern Ireland growth challenge. I am pleased that the Government welcome the efforts of the growth challenge, which offered excellent ideas in relation to employment creation in Northern Ireland. They involve a number of private sector companies. It is disturbing to hear the Northern Ireland growth challenge refer to a culture of comfort in Northern Ireland and to the possibility that, unless the peace dividend is properly managed, there could be a gap in its cycle of comfort, as it calls it, which could lead to higher unemployment in the short term.
  In the time left available to me, I should like to touch on other issues in the report. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on small businesses. Northern Ireland has a high proportion of small firms compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 184 of the report states:
  "Small businesses … can suffer from a cautious approach to lending on the part of the banks."

  285
  Paragraph 189 states:
  "The largest problem encountered by Northern Ireland's small businesses is that of cash flow, payments and debtors".
  It is probably as well that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or small businesses in the Province would be in real trouble. The Labour party is on record as saying that it is considering proposals for statutory protection for small businesses in relation to late payment of debts, and a moratorium law to assist in relation to bankruptcy.
  Energy costs are the subject of another Select Committee report. That issue needs to be dealt with. The privatisation of electricity in Northern Ireland has left generators in an unregulated monopoly position, with contracts extending well into the next century—until 2024. There is little likelihood of electricity prices coming down in Northern Ireland until the issue of those contracts—including the gas "take or pay" contract— is dealt with.
  On transport links, I take on board Northern Ireland Members' comments on the A8 to Larne. The Province has a high level of academic achievement, both at A-level and at universities. The downside is the number of children who leave school without any qualification. I am pleased that the Government's response to the report calls for measures to improve that position.
  I have mentioned the peace dividend. It is essential that the Government carefully manage what is referred to as the peace dividend—about £500 million going into the Northern Ireland economy. I hope that it will continue to be the case that we no longer need to spend as much on security and such matters in Northern Ireland. That money should not simply be removed from the Northern Ireland economy in one go.
  I do not have much time to debate tourism, but the report says that it has the potential to create 20,000 jobs. That must be dealt with.
  I endorse the report's final paragraph, which states:
  "The ceasefires, if permanent, are potentially a turning point in the Province's history".
  12.22 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I pay a warm tribute to the work of the late Sir James Kilfedder, who became the first Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. He is remembered with enormous affection in Northern Ireland as a great constituency Member of Parliament. We are grateful to him and to the people who followed him in the Select Committee's chairmanship for their work. We are also grateful to all members who served on that Committee and for the content of their first report. In the time available to me, I shall try to pick up on some of the points that have been raised in this important debate.
  The debate has understandably attracted a great deal of interest in Northern Ireland. Consequently, many Northern Ireland Members are present in the Chamber and have sought to speak. Unfortunately, the debate's short duration has prevented many of them from making the
  286
  speeches that I know they would have liked to make. It is therefore important that I should place it on record that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was present and spoke and that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) was also here, as were the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe). The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also spoke.
  If I may impishly pick up a remark by the right hon. Member for Strangford on the theme of, "They haven't gone away, you know," the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also made it to the debate and made an important speech, with which I shall try to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who is a sterling member of the Select Committee, also made some valuable points.
  In the brief time available to me, I should like to deal with some of the key, important points that have been a theme of the debate. In his role as the distinguished Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised the important point of better information on research and development in Northern Ireland. I inform him and the House that the Department of Economic Development has undertaken new research on spending on research and development in the Province. The first results are available. That research will be continued and published in future years, so it will not only assist the Select Committee on future occasions, but guide and inform Northern Ireland Members who consider the effectiveness of investment in Northern Ireland's economy.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the issue of the action for community employment programme, which I should like to deal with early in my remarks because I know that it is of great importance to Northern Ireland's people and to Northern Ireland Members in particular. I fully understand the concerns that have been raised in the debate and I assure the House that my noble Friend in the other place has received similar representations on the matter. She has advised me that she is preparing measures that will help smooth the transition to an ACE programme that is more appropriate to the current economic circumstances. I assure hon. Members that she will announce those transitional arrangements shortly.
  ACE, however, was introduced when unemployment was rising rapidly. As we have discussed during this short debate, that position has changed for the better and employment opportunities have markedly improved. We have 7,000 registered vacancies and we must skill the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that they can take up those vacancies. Next year, ACE expenditure will be about £40 million. In total, about £46 million will be spent on schemes for the long-term unemployed in 1996 and 1997.
  The theme of the debate has been, to use the language of the hon. Member for South Down, quality and efficiency, and getting the right jobs in Northern Ireland— not merely low-grade, low-paid ones. The hon. Gentleman made an important point, which I link to the ACE programme. The pot of money that is available in Northern Ireland must be effectively used if it is to realise the Select Committee's objective, as well as meet the interests of the hon. Member for South Down.

  287
  The right hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the importance of the rural economy. As the Minister with responsibility for finance, I am only too aware of his point. I assure him that I shall consider that matter in my overarching role. He made a sound point. We must not overlook the needs of people in the rural economy. They are being dealt with, but it is important that that should followed up.
  The road to and from Larne is for ever etched on my memory. In constituencies in southern England, the campaign is about not having the motorway at one's front door, but in Northern Ireland the reverse is true; everybody, especially in Larne, would like the motorway to end at his front door. The hon. Member for East Antrim
  288
  pleaded his case with his usual eloquence, and I hope that the private finance initiative may ride to the rescue and provide in due course investment that would help to solve the problem.
  In the one minute that I have left, I shall touch upon another important issue that several hon. Members raised—the question of Fokker and Shorts. I appreciate the importance of the contracts to Shorts, and confirm that Baroness Denton recently met Dutch Government representatives to discuss that subject. Although it is a commercial matter and will have to be resolved by commercial mechanisms, I assure the House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must now move on to the next topic.

  One-day sales
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise an issue of immense concern to my constituents and to many other people throughout the country. In Lancashire, there is a scourge of one-day sales, and people are being comprehensively ripped off by silver-tongued professional swindlers.
  Last October, a one-day sale was run in my constituency by William Stephen Beach, of Albert road, Cheltenham. In the previous Session of Parliament, in my early-day motion 1497, I described Mr. Beach as
  "an unscrupulous and wholly disreputable fraudster and cheat".
  Beach was previously a director of Gloucester Fancy Goods Ltd. and J. B. Sales (Gloucester) Ltd., both of which are now dissolved. I believe that he is currently a director of Table Top Marketing Ltd. and Steve's Cash and Carry.
  Last October, I outlined Beach's technique. He breezed into the area, having booked venues for his sales at the Great Marsden hotel in Nelson and the North Valley community centre in Colne. He leafleted the immediate area around the venues and conned people into believing that the boxes of goods that they bought contained top-quality merchandise that was bankrupt stock. In fact they were getting cheap shoddy rubbish. Beach then disappeared like a puff of blue smoke, until I tracked him down in Cheltenham.
  My constituent, Mrs. Lana Ellerton, ended up with two pillows and a clock that she did not want, and she was typical of many people. She told me that people were put under immense pressure to buy goods.
  I was so incensed by what had happened that, last October, I called on the Government to review the law on consumer protection and to find out how it could be more effectively applied. Unfortunately, on 30 October, the President of the Board of Trade told me that the Government had no plans to change consumer protection law as it related to liquidation and similar sales. I sincerely hope that the Government will now reconsider their position, and act.
  After the experience with Beach, I called on the local council to ban one-day sales on council-owned premises, telling it that local people were being ripped off and that local traders were losing business to fly-by-night operators. Pendle council voted to ban sales in its properties, but unfortunately it displayed a misplaced generosity of spirit in allowing bookings already in the pipeline to be honoured.
  At that stage, enter Mr. Steve Johnson, of 2 Princess street, Blackpool, who for £69.30 booked Barnoldswick civic hall on 23 January for what was described as a public sale. I have a copy of his leaflet, heralding an
  "Important Announcement
  Owing to the harsh economic situation and collapse of many well known companies"
  there was to be a public sale at Barnoldswick civic centre. Goods advertised for sale included a Kenwood food mixer for £8, a Black and Decker cordless powerdriver for £10, a Super Nintendo for £15 to clear, Philips, Sony,
  290
  Panasonic, and other top of the range videos for £30 each, a 2 in Casio television for £10, and electronic personal organisers for £5.
  "Please come early to avoid disappointment",
  said Steve Johnson.
  "Beat the Recession and get a bargain of a lifetime",
  said Steve Johnson.
  "Definitely no gimmicks, no tricks—just good value … We give 100 per cent. value—Not promises … Guarantee on all goods".
  All that was pure fiction.
  On the leaflets that were circulated in Barnoldswick there was nothing to say who was responsible for the sale, nothing like the imprint that one would expect on political leaflets to be circulated in a general or local election; they were anonymous.
  Steve Johnson knows precisely what he is doing. He is taking good money from innocent people who believe they are getting a bargain that is literally fantastic. People look at the platform piled high with goods, and willingly suspend their disbelief. They think that they will get a bargain. Johnson preys upon those people; like Beach before him, he is an evil calculating cheat and con man.
  At the one-day sale at Barnoldswick on 23 January about 80 people turned up, and they left hundreds of pounds lighter in their pockets and purses. They say that they were sold cheap shoddy goods, and that misrepresentation was rife. The quality brands mentioned in the leaflet, such as Panasonic, JVC and Sony, were not there—or if they were they were not sold. They were stage props. If such goods are ever sold, they are sold only to stooges in the audience.
  Johnson targeted an area of Barnoldswick for his phoney "star bargains" and "no gimmicks" sale. For obvious reasons, he did not advertise in the local press. That would have given the game away and alerted people to what was happening. Instead, 24 hours before the sale, he distributed a blizzard of leaflets with no imprint, and people duly turned up, wondering what to expect.
  The caretaker of the hall, Mr. Lou Farr, told me what happened. About eight people turned up in a clapped-out van. He said that they had southern accents—but that is not a hanging offence; I do not hold that against them. While 80 people clamoured to get in, Steve Johnson and his friends put plastic bin liners over the windows so that people could not look in and see what was happening.
  The goods were brought in by the back door and piled high, and at half-past seven the sale started. There were a few sweeteners. Video tapes and cassettes were sold for £1 or 50p. Torches in blister packs that would ordinarily retail for a tenner were sold for £1. After about 15 minutes, the doors to the hall were closed, a couple of heavies were stationed outside and latecomers were told that the sale had started and were turned away.
  At that point, Johnson and his team of rogues moved into top gear. He started piling boxes of goods into plastic bin liners, saying that ghetto blasters, toasters and other goods worth £300 were there for the asking, and that he would take only £60 for them. Twenty-seven people fell for it. They bought goods that were not top of the range merchandise but inferior shoddy rubbish manufactured in China, Taiwan and other such places.
  The con did not stop there. People who bought goods were told that they could not open their purchases during the sale—only afterwards. They were asked to leave a

  291
  blank space for the payee when writing cheques. One victim, my constituent Mrs. Yvonne Farrelly, said that Johnson agreed to take cheques only up to a limit of £100 and if they were backed by a cheque guarantee card, so she wrote four cheques totalling £320 for her purchases. She told my local paper, the excellent, campaigning Barnoldswick and Earby Times:
  "Don't be ripped off like I was … The hi-fi cost £60 and I am sure in my own mind that the organisers said that it was a CD player. However, when we opened up the box, it only plays cassettes and you can buy the same thing from Argos for just £34 … There are no guarantees in the box or nothing".
  Johnson claimed that the goods had guarantees. Mrs. Farrelly added:
  "I consider it to be a complete rip-off."
  She also bought a camera for £60 and told me that it was worth £10. Twenty-seven people bought a cheap clock radio for £10 and were promised that they would get something three times as valuable at the end of the evening. They never did.
  Given the fuss that I created in October by drawing the matter to the attention of the House and contacting my local council, I was furious when I discovered what had happened on 23 January. On Sunday, I got in my car and drove from Pendle on the Lancashire side of the Lancashire-Yorkshire border to Blackpool to beard the lion in his den—I was going to have it out with Mr. Steve Johnson—but the shutters of his shop were down and he was not about. I took photographs of his shop, which I have distributed among the local papers, and I tried to telephone him, but the contact number that he gave the council when booking the hall was unobtainable. I suspect that he has not paid his telephone bill and BT has cut him off. The sign outside the seedy, crumbling corner shop off the front in Blackpool from where Mr. Steve Johnson operates says that fancy goods and gifts are for sale and that there is also an adult section.
  I want a very bright spotlight to be shone on the swindler Johnson, and I do not want him or his friends ever to be within 30 miles of my constituency. One-day sales always end in tears. People who cannot afford to shell out money, who live on council estates and in poorer areas are targeted and find themselves paying out good money for rubbish.
  The problem is not confined to my constituency or Lancashire; it occurs elsewhere and it is growing. Last year, the Financial Times estimated that about 90 such crooks were operating in the United Kingdom. Last year's annual conference of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration was told that fly-by-night operators were of increasing concern, especially in seaside towns.
  There is protection at the moment, but it is inadequate and limited. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Acts 1994 and 1995 and the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 are good but they do not go far enough. It is often virtually impossible to track down people such as Johnson and Beach for the reasons that I have already given.
  Commercial leaflets, like political leaflets, should carry an imprint of the name of the person organising the sale and the business address and telephone number of the salesman or saleswoman. By law, a sign should be displayed outside the sale's venue explaining the purpose
  292
  of the sale—whether it is a liquidation sale or a bankruptcy sale, for example—and again stating the name and address of the sale promoter.
  Trading standards officers should be given adequate notice of sales. The North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991 already provides for such notice, but obviously applies only to North Yorkshire, next door to Lancashire. That provision should be extended nationwide. I want local authorities to give Johnson, Beach and other such crooks a very wide birth and not to allow them to hire council premises unless the council is prepared to take out joint liability so that if there were misrepresentation or people were defrauded and the sale promoter could not be tracked down, the council hiring out the hall would be liable.
  I am not a single voice crying in the wilderness. The chief trading standards officer of my county council, Mr. J. H. Potts, has been in touch with me. In his letter of yesterday, he says
  "In my 25 years experience"—
  in trading standards—
  "I have to say that the majority of itinerant traders operating 'rostrum' sales of general goods (rather than the specialist suppliers e.g. textiles pottery, paintings etc or who allow consumers to browse and self select goods) generate high numbers of consumer complaints and often mislead customers into buying shoddy goods at high prices. The Mock Auctions Act 1961 is totally ineffective".
  I know that that is true. Mr. Potts says that, although the Act controls "free" gifts, restricted bidding and "reduced" bids, they are
  "easily evaded by fast-talking salesman."
  How true that is. Like me, Mr. Potts wants, at the very least, the introduction of national legislation, and at best, the licensing of all one-day sellers. He reminds me that licensing already operates in the credit industry and for street traders, for example. It must be the right way forward to require one-day wonders to trade fairly.
  I hope that I have made it clear that one-day sales are an absolute scourge and that the people responsible for them are loathsome because they target among the poorest people in our communities. I request that the issue not be put to one side as something trivial, but that the concerns of so many people be responded to and that action be taken.
  12.47 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I certainly do not think that one-day sales are trivial. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on raising the matter again. I have listened to his speech with great interest and I am glad to have the opportunity to set out the Government's views.
  A one-day sale is, as the name suggests, a sale held on only one day, although the term is often applied to more permanent sales that use similar sales techniques. Generally, the sales are held in public halls, hotels and other such local venues, which are hired for the purpose. Attention is usually drawn to the events by extensive local advertising, which will often take the form of leaflets delivered door to door, although advertisements also frequently placed in local newspapers.
  To make such events attractive, most offer fantastic bargains of some sort. Various reasons are given for the ability to offer such bargains. It may be claimed, for example, that the event is a warehouse clearance, or that the goods are stock clearance lines or bankrupt stock.

  293
  One-day sales need not, of course, be in any way fraudulent. Some traders offer genuine bargains to the public in this way. Unfortunately, in the past 18 months or so in particular, there have been an increasing number of complaints about one-day sales involving operators who are less scrupulous about the selling methods that they adopt. I am aware that feelings can run high as a result of the way in which many sales are conducted. The practices employed by operators are many and varied.
  Essentially, the salesman—who generally conducts the sale from a rostrum like an auctioneer—spends a long time convincing customers of the bargains on offer. A few genuine bargains are usually distributed, although it is alleged that they are often passed to accomplices of the organiser. The salesman builds the atmosphere to a pitch at which customers are persuaded to purchase lots, often consisting of unspecified items, in the belief that they will receive some of the valuable items they were shown or told about earlier. What they receive is generally worth a fraction of what they pay—as was the case with the hon. Gentleman's constituent—and are not the goods that tempted them in the first place.
  At a typical sale, the salesman will hook his audience by offering a single item at a modest price—usually around £5. He will suggest that purchase of the item will show that they are genuine bargain hunters. He may even pass disparaging remarks about those not showing what he often calls their good faith in this way. Often, non-buyers will be asked to leave. After seeing piles of expensive electronic goods practically given away, they are asked to pledge a larger sum for unspecified items.
  The salesman might say something like, "I want to see all your hands up now. Who will give me £50 for what's on my mind?" All hands usually shoot up at this point. If they do not, he will affect to give away more bargains. As soon as most customers indicate their willingness to buy, the salesman has reached the point he was aiming at. The money is then collected and goods handed out, but not visibly. They are distributed in black plastic dustbin liners.
  The customers will be told not to open the bag until they get home, and they are given various reasons for this—perhaps it would cause too much litter in a crowded hall, or it prevents those who have not purchased from satisfying their curiosity. People usually comply. As soon as the salesman judges that he has squeezed the maximum amount out of his audience, he will close the proceedings and everybody will be quickly ushered out by his heavy accomplices. Anybody returning to complain usually receives short shrift.
  Many of the one-day sales that are causing problems have similarities to a mock auction. Organisers of one-day sales, however, are now tailoring their techniques so as to fall outside the scope of the Mock Auctions Act 1961. The Act made it an offence to promote, conduct or assist in the conduct of a mock auction. A sale of goods by way of competitive bidding is a mock auction if various conditions are met. These are: a lot is sold to a buyer at a price lower than his highest bid; or part of the price is repaid or credited to him; or the right to bid for any lot is restricted to persons who have agreed to buy other articles; or any articles are given away.
  294
  Organisers of new-style one-day sales are now careful to avoid using the actual techniques that would classify the sale as a mock auction, although they may lead unwary participants to react as if the sale were a mock auction. Publicity literature often emphasises that the sale is not an auction. Goods are no longer given away, but are sold at giveaway prices.
  While no statement may specifically be made about the right to bid for any lots unless something else is purchased, there is an implication that that is the case. Prospective purchasers are asked, for example, to show their genuineness by making a small standard purchase and are told that they will not be disappointed by subsequent bargains if they do. Quite often, those not taking part are asked to leave. The salesman conducting the sale will not offer any money back, but may suggest that, on top of any purchase that is made, purchasers will be given other items of great value.
  One-day sales are by no means as prevalent as were mock auctions in their heyday. Although one-day sales take place throughout the country, they appear to be attributable to a comparatively small number of operators. Some are quite permanent sales that use similar selling techniques. These are generally situated at places where the organisers can rely on a constant stream of new customers—for example, at seaside resorts or shopping centres of major cities where tourists are found. Many such sales are held at empty shops without the owner's permission. When the organiser is eventually evicted, he will merely move on to a similar unoccupied shop.
  There is a considerable body of consumer protection legislation that is relevant to one-day sales and it has already been used by enforcement authorities at various times. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides that a buyer can expect goods that he purchases to be as described, and of satisfactory quality. There is also the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which makes it an offence for a person to give—by whatever means—any false or misleading information on a wide range of characteristics of the goods he supplies or offers to supply.
  In addition, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it an offence to give a misleading price indication. Furthermore, if the organiser issues a misleading advertisement and will not withdraw it, the Director General of Fair Trading has powers under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988. Ultimately he can seek an injunction to stop the advertisement.
  In the late 1970s, the Director General of Fair Trading considered the question of one-day sales in detail. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence of economic detriment to support a call for new legislation to control such events, but he publicised the dangers of one-day sales that use mock auction techniques. He advised consumers to be on their guard at such sales. Once enticed by the prospect of a bargain, it is only too easy to be caught up in an atmosphere skilfully created and manipulated by the salesman and to part with large sums of money for items of little value. That advice is as valid today as it was then. The director general has also taken action and given warnings in a number of cases where the law was infringed, using his powers under part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I bring the Minister forward to 7 February 1996? A report in today's

  295
  Daily Express states that Department of Trade and Industry officials are looking at whether legislation might be needed for one-day sales. Can he confirm in the time remaining to him whether that is the case?
  Mr. Taylor: I confess that I have not read the Daily Express this morning, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, under my instruction, DTI officials will continue to consider the problem.
  Some trading standards departments have suggested, and the hon. Gentleman has today reiterated, that further legislation is necessary to deal with the problem— for example, by amending the Mock Auctions Act 1961 or introducing a nationwide requirement reflecting the provisions of the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Act requires organisers to give 21 days notice of a one-day or occasional sale with a description of the goods for sale and the names and addresses of the organisers, and the name and address of a person appointed to receive and answer complaints about the sale. The organisers must also describe whether the sale is to be held on other days, the extent of the premises to be occupied and an estimate of the number of people who will attend.
  One of the deficiencies of public life is that it is impossible to legislate for human nature, particularly when our fellow citizens—acting in good faith and good hope—are being manipulated by the kind of rogues to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. My officials have periodically discussed the issues raised by one-day sales with trading standards officers, and they will shortly meet the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards and other trading standards representatives to review the situation. We shall continue to keep the situation under review.
  I hope that that reply confirms to the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the problems that some one-day sales can create. We share his concern, and I believe that the consumer needs to be very wary. I am not at present persuaded, however, that that wariness can be aroused effectively by further legislation.

  Burma
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to raise a subject as important as Her Majesty's Government's relations with Burma. We had a debate in the House on 19 July last year, in which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made some significant points following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from confinement last July.
  I am delighted to see present in the Chamber not only the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), but the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who takes a great deal of interest in this subject. I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) that he would have been here had his schedule allowed it.
  I am not an expert in Burmese affairs, but I recognise a gross human rights violation when I see one. There can be no grosser violation than that of the democratic sovereignty of a country. Burma was turned over in 1990 by the State Law and Order Restoration Council regime. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy obtained no less than 82 per cent. of the popular vote in an election, but was promptly prevented by military intervention from taking power. That is as gross an invasion of the sovereignty of a country as a territorial invasion would have been.
  We all very much admire the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi and her continuing calls for reconciliation, communication and peaceful protest, despite the provocations that she and her supporters have no doubt suffered. We remember, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in last summer's debate, that Baroness Chalker, the Foreign Office Minister said in a lecture:
  "The United Nations charter lays a duty on all of us to promote respect for human rights everywhere."
  She merely echoed the slightly more florid tones of President Kennedy when he said:
  "The people of the world respect a nation that can see beyond its image".
  As we have former colonial responsibilities for Burma, I believe that in that context alone, the British Government should, and does, take human rights in Burma seriously.
  As the Minister said in the last debate on Burma, rhetoric in such situations is often easier than practical action. One of my greatest frustrations as vice-chairman of the parliamentary human rights group is the difficulty of the international community in giving practical effect to its condemnation of human rights regimes in other countries. I appreciate that there is always a balance between constructive engagement through aid, trade or diplomatic relations and sufficient pressure in other ways. I equally appreciate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said in July, that caution should be the watchword in our dealings with Burma. We should concentrate on the practical aspects of our good governance policy. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Aid is a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma, and we must be careful that it is used to support reform rather than undermine it."— [Official Report, 19 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1644.]

  297
  The cautious optimism that then characterised the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not been borne out by events in Burma since last July.
  The SLORC Government would no doubt say that the economy has revived in the past year, during which time, I understand, rice production has risen by 15 per cent. The House should not forget that about 30 years ago Burma was the largest exporter of rice. Some additional foreign investment—one may or may not agree with the wisdom of making such investment, given the Burmese Government's human rights record—particularly from Japan, has resumed. Some political prisoners have been released, although many hundreds, if not thousands, remain in gaol. There has been a ceasefire with 15 out of 16 of the rebel movements that litter Burma, which is an intensely multicultural and multi-racial country.
  On at least a formal basis, the constitutional convention continues to meet intermittently. It is at least talking about steps towards democracy, although whether that democracy would meet the requirements of most Members of Parliament must be open to doubt. SLORC has maintained its policy of economic diplomacy—as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale called it—and has attempted to achieve at least some sort of military stability by economic improvements.
  However, as was said recently in the Asian context:
  "No human being should be asked to choose between bread and freedom."
  That is the choice that SLORC puts before the Burmese people.
  There is definite and continuing evidence of massive human rights abuses in Burma. There is no freedom of assembly or effective political association. Some, including Amnesty International and the Burma Action Group point to the rising number of political prisoners, despite some releases earlier last year. The International Labour Organisation still points to the significant use of forced labour. Some 80,000 labourers have been forced to work, perversely and ironically, on the preparations for the "Visit Myanmar Year 1996". Those people have been displaced from their villages and taken away from their families and are being used to construct roads and other infrastructure for what the regime hopes will be a newly buoyant tourist industry.
  The United Nations human rights rapporteur, Mr. Yakato, has itemised summary executions, torture and forced movements, particularly in the east of the country against the Karen people. I find it appalling that the SLORC regime has decided that it wants a reservation on article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That article prevents the torture of children. The regime has found it necessary to seek a reservation in order to promote its continued hold on power.
  A 20-point resolution was drawn up by the United Nations social, humanitarian and cultural committee in December. It deplored continued violations of human rights in Burma. Sadly, on the political front, it appears that the constitutional convention is increasingly being revealed as a declining farce. It was never likely to get off the ground in a substantive way since 600 out of the 700 delegates are government appointed. It proceeds on the assumption that no one who is married to a foreigner, which includes Aung San Suu Kyi, should ever be able to
  298
  hold high office. Her appointment as secretary general of the National League for Democracy was specifically not recognised by the SLORC regime.
  The constitutional convention also lays down ground rules that most people would regard as profoundly undemocratic for the new constitution. The chairman of its convening commission, General Nyunt, said at its opening session in 1993 that the new constitution would depend upon
  "the participation of the Defence Services in the leading role in national politics in the future."
  If that is not a recipe for a military regime, I do not know what is.
  As the convention appears to have descended into farce, it is not surprising that on 29 November 1995 the National League for Democracy, which is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, should decide that it was no longer appropriate to take part. She, rightly, justified its action by saying:
  "If the League is not allowed to represent the views of the people then why was the election held in 1990"—
  and what justification, by implication, is there for continuing to take part in the convention? Despite that, and the provocations that she and her supporters—who, after all, have been the legitimate Government of Burma since the overturned 1990 elections—have faced, she continues to promote dialogue with the existing regime and discourage demonstrations or anything that might be used by the regime to promote renewed oppression of the people of Burma.
  I have four questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister about what Britain can do, given the deteriorating human rights and political situation in Burma. Everything that I am going to ask him to do would bolster the position of the legitimate Government of Burma, which is the National League for Democracy, while encouraging dialogue.
  First, there is the tricky question of investment and trade, over which there seems to be some confusion about the stance of the British Government. For instance, in 1993, the then Minister for Trade said:
  "The Government's policy is to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma in view of the current political and economic situation there."— [Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 214.]
  That is quite categorical and was said only two years ago in a political situation similar to the present one. Yet the Department of Trade and Industry actively encouraged, through the south of England exporters association, trade missions that took place in November and a seminar on, "An Introduction to Burma—The latest tiger club", organised by the London chamber of commerce and industry on 5 December. Other trade missions, involving 37 countries, are being supported by the DTI later this year.
  I would have thought that such encouragement is not what Aung San Suu Kyi has been urging on the British Government as constructive disengagement from the regime in Burma. It seems to contradict directly the original position of the British Government. It certainly contradicts the position taken by Daw Suu Kyi when she said that future investment, and by implication improved trading links, between western firms and the Burmese Government and Burma in general would have to "jolly well wait" until there had been significant improvements in human rights and democratic freedoms. A clarification of the Government's position on trade and investment in Burma would be useful.

  299
  Secondly, will the Government continue to refuse to recognise any constitution proposed by the SLORC regime through its pet convention on the constitution if it is not specifically approved by the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi? To do anything else would be to acquiesce in making legitimate the new regime that overturned democracy in 1990.
  Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend the Minister work, through the United Nations, to improve human rights monitoring in Burma to ensure that there will be a constant stream of information so that not only will engagement but the trade and aid that will follow depend on human rights being improved?
  Fourthly, will he ensure that Britain supports the EU's current position that dialogue with ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, would be significantly jeopardised if Burma were allowed entry into the ASEAN group of nations on an unreformed basis?
  Finally, it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Minister to say now that Britain would encourage a position whereby any international involvement, particularly on a multilateral basis, with Burma was dependent on the specific agreement, at least in principle, by Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the legitimate leader of Burma. Those steps would bolster democracy in Burma, improve the bargaining power of its democratic forces— which desperately need it—and ensure there was a genuine rather than a symbolic democracy in Burma, symbolic democracy being the sort that the SLORC regime would like to foist on the people. Most of all, those steps would send a signal to the rest of the world that democratic, civilised nations are not prepared to stand by and watch democracy, elections and freedoms being trampled underfoot by regimes such as that in Burma and are prepared to back their rhetoric with substantive, positive action.
  1.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for initiating this debate and I recognise fully the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in this subject. He has met me on a number of occasions to discuss issues involving Burma. I must say that the presence of four Ministers and other Conservative Members is in stark contrast to the interest shown by the Opposition. There is not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat Member here to discuss what I regard as a most important matter. Burma is an important country and one that we watch—and have to watch—carefully.
  Last July year, in the debate secured by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I told the House that I warmly welcomed the decision of the State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from her long period of detention without trial. I hoped that that would signal a new dawn for Burmese politics and allow Daw Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, or NLD, to participate in the creation of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Burma.
  Those hopes have not yet been fulfilled. The much-needed dialogue between Daw Suu Kyi and SLORC has yet to materialise. Indeed, most recently
  300
  SLORC appears to be increasing the pressure on Daw Suu Kyi and her supporters. Recent arrests and harassment of NLD personnel are a cause for concern.
  Last November, the NLD decided to withdraw its support for the national convention constitutional review process because of SLORC's failure to begin a serious dialogue about national reconciliation, institute genuine multi-party democracy and produce a constitution that could win the support of the people.
  The European Union considered it important to reiterate the need for dialogue and to call for a peaceful settlement of differences. We issued the following statement at the time:
  "The European Union expresses its concern about the absence of open and meaningful dialogue on constitutional reform involving all sectors of opinion in Burma including the NLD recently being forced to abandon the National Convention.
  The European Union firmly believes that dialogue will help prevent confrontation and offers the best hope of national reconciliation. We, therefore, call upon the SLORC to engage in dialogue with all Burma's political and ethnic groups and to increase their efforts to achieve national reconciliation and multi-party democracy. At the same time we urge all parties concerned to proceed with caution and to take all possible steps to avoid a return to violence."
  That remains our position. We want SLORC to build on the hopes that have been nurtured by the release of Daw Suu Kyi and for there to be progress towards genuine reform.
  We will continue to make those views known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest is aware, we have long been at the forefront of international action on Burma and initiated the European Union's suspension of official aid in 1988, an arms embargo in 1991 and a ban on all defence links in 1992. We shall not weaken in our commitment to help forward the cause of reform in Burma.
  I have heard suggestions that, for commercial reasons, our support for reform in Burma may be weakening. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did not say that, but I certainly welcome the opportunity to rebut such an insinuation. The question of trade is complex—I shall deal with it later in my speech—but let me be clear: our will to see real change in Burma is undiminished, and our support for the reform process is as strong as ever.
  I shall cite the latest evidence of that support. At the recent 50th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, we worked closely with other countries to secure a critical resolution on the political and human rights situations in Burma. The resolution urged SLORC to engage in a substantive dialogue with Daw Suu Kyi and other political leaders, including representatives of ethnic groups, as the best means of promoting national reconciliation and the full and early restoration of democracy. I shall take this opportunity to repeat that call on the members of SLORC to take those steps, which are vital to the future of their country and its place in the international community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest mentioned the human rights situation in Burma, as did my good friend the hon. Member for Gedling at our meeting. The Government remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation. The UN resolution addressed some of those concerns by urging SLORC
  "to release immediately and unconditionally detained political leaders and all political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation."

  301
  It also expressed grave worries about the attacks on the Karen and encouraged SLORC to create the conditions necessary to ensure an end to the movements of refugees to neighbouring countries. That would be conducive to voluntary return and full reintegration of those people, in conditions of safety and dignity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked us to monitor the human rights situation in Burma closely. We will continue to do so and to take every opportunity to urge SLORC to comply with UN resolutions and to fulfil its basic duties to all the people of Burma. In particular, I call on SLORC to recognise the right of all Burmese people to participate fully in the political process. That will remain a central objective of our policy towards Burma.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked about the Government's position on trade with Burma. I said earlier that that is a complex issue. However, the elements of our policy are logical and are not difficult to understand, and I believe that those who are most directly concerned clearly understand it. We do not think that we should cut off trade with Burma. We may be able, through trade, to help to reinforce our pressure for reform. Daw Suu Kyi has not called for a ban on trade to Burma. If there is one thing on which she and SLORC agree, it is that Burma is in desperate need of economic development.
  In a recent interview with the BBC, in answer to a question about whether foreign investment and trade will boost growth, Daw Suu Kyi replied:
  "It depends on how investments are put to use. Those that bring prosperity to the country and the people are one thing. But investments that widen the gap between the rich and poor will never benefit the country".
  I cannot but agree with that.
  We do not see trade with Burma intrinsically as a bad thing. Furthermore, we believe that, with the exception of defence exports—which are, of course, subject to the European Union's embargo—we have a responsibility to ensure that British companies are kept informed of developments in Burma and are aware of potential opportunities. British firms are anxious to explore the market and to match their competitors. They have requested the support of Her Majesty's Government, and we should provide it. However, we draw the line at any suggestion of funding for projects that have been commissioned by the ruling SLORC. That is why we do not even consider support for major investment projects.
  It is worth taking a few moments to clear up some facts about British investment in Burma. Investment is notoriously difficult to measure. Figures that quote Britain as the largest investor in Burma include investments from other countries that are channelled through some of our dependent territories as well as investment from Britain. Because of our history, it is natural that British business should have invested in Burma over the years.
  302
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest obliquely referred to history. One should beware of figures that may not be representative of current British investment in Burma. The Department of Trade and Industry seminar that was held last December, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the first trade mission, which will be made later this month, are modest contributions to the process of keeping companies informed. Those events provide us with an opportunity to ensure that British companies that have expressed an interest in Burma are made aware of the realities of doing business there and informed of the situation there. Ultimately, it is for the companies to weigh up whether they wish to operate in Burma in the current circumstances.
  In view of the political and economic conditions that prevail in Burma, we firmly remain of the view that it is still premature for the Government to provide any bilateral aid that might directly benefit SLORC. That does not mean that we will provide no humanitarian aid to Burma; we are still willing to consider projects that are identified and implemented by non-governmental organisations. As I have said, aid can be a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma. We shall continue to discuss the way ahead with our European Union partners.
  The European Union agrees that we should reward reform in Burma by providing aid, as long as it is targeted at the grass-roots level and to the people who are most in need. We think that it is vital that SLORC should allow the UN and other non-governmental organisations to operate in Burma. Only in that way will the Burmese people be able to benefit from the help that we all wish to provide.
  We must make full use of the weight of our common European Union policy. The European Union has a "critical dialogue" with SLORC that makes it clear that the resumption of normal relations will be conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights, and political and economic reform. We must use the dialogue to accelerate liberalisation and political change to create a prosperous and democratic Burma.
  Last July, in the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and I earlier referred, I summarised our current attitude to Burma as cautiously optimistic. Developments since then may have tipped the balance further towards caution. Burma still desperately needs meaningful reform, which will require that courage and common sense prevail. We know that the people of Burma have those qualities, and I believe that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is perhaps the embodiment of courage.
  I have tried to explain what we are doing to advance the process of reform. I continue to hope that the efforts of all those who are working for successful change in Burma will bear fruit. As long as there is an interest in the House about reform in Burma and we continue to remember that, in time the democratic process must prevail and the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United Nations will be able to encourage Burma to return to what it should be: a beautiful country with a great future.

  Building (Education Sector)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the important subject of the condition of buildings in the education sector. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for having agreed to consider very seriously the issues and specific examples to which I shall draw attention.
  In the past few days, the media have paid much attention to the Office for Standards in Education annual report. Among many other things, the report highlighted a worrying problem in our schools. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools said that 2,700 primary schools, which is one in seven of the total, and 800 secondary schools, or one in five of the total, had poor accommodation. He said in his report:
  "Teachers who lack proper resources or who work in poor buildings experience problems which at best frustrate and at worst defeat their best efforts to do a decent job."
  Buildings are in disrepair not only in our schools, but throughout the further and higher education sectors. That affects teachers' and lecturers' ability to deliver education for pupils and students to learn; it also raises vital health and safety issues.
  In this brief debate, I shall draw attention to the buildings crisis in the education sector and the Government's persistent cuts in capital allocations and I shall call on the Minister to recognise that there is a growing problem throughout the sector which requires investment rather than cuts. In my opinion, it is somewhat hypocritical of the Government to speak constantly of plans to improve educational achievement while neglecting the fabric of the buildings in which the education is delivered.
  The Secretary of State admitted in a letter to the School Teachers' Review Body on 30 November 1995:
  "Further pressure arises from the continuing needs for essential repairs and maintenance to the school building stock".
  Yet this year, on average, English local education authorities received only a fifth of their bid for capital allocation—for urgently needed new buildings and for essential repairs and maintenance work.
  In 1990–91, 74 per cent. of Derbyshire's capital bid was approved. That percentage has decreased steadily and this year only 8 per cent. of the LEA's capital bid was approved. Capital spending in real terms on schools is now roughly half its value 20 years ago, and for much of the 1980s was one-third of 1974–75 spending.
  In a recent survey that I conducted, it was revealed that £1.1 billion is needed by LEAs in England and Wales simply to make their schools safe for children. Nearly a third of LEAs questioned required more than £10 million each to make their schools safe, and four local education authorities needed more than £45 million to ensure safety in their schools.
  One LEA questioned in the survey commented:
  "£10–15 million would only provide a safe working environment—not necessarily an environment appropriate to the delivery of the curriculum in 1995 and beyond … we estimate the cost of bringing all schools' premises to an acceptable standard for curriculum delivery to be at least £250 million and possibly more."
  304
  A survey by the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education, in October 1995, revealed that more than 20 per cent. of English and Welsh LEAs that replied had one or more primary schools with only outside loos.
  A survey carried out by the National Association of School Masters and Union of Women Teachers in Haringey found that 55 per cent. of schools in Haringey have problems with leaking drainpipes, drains and roofs, 74 per cent. of schools have uneven or potholed playgrounds and 64 per cent. have visible cracks in walls—though not so bad as the cracks at Oliver Goldsmith school in Brent, where the west wing is detaching itself from the rest of the school, yet despite the problems at that school Brent council's bid for capital allocation for the necessary repairs was turned down.
  The problem confronting many schools may best be illustrated by a copy of a letter sent to the Secretary of State that I received from a Mr. Horner, whose daughter attends the Southowram Withinfields junior and infant school in Halifax. It is worth quoting a large extract from that letter:
  "Only 3 classrooms out of nine are taught in the main building … the other six being housed in temporary classrooms which have been placed in the playground leaving virtually nowhere for children to play in. All the temporary classrooms have damaged walls, two have rotten window frames, one has no toilet facilities at all … the oldest 'temporary classroom' is now 30 years old … is held up with metal props and a central wooden joist has to be fixed across the centre of both classrooms to secure the buildings. This is the classroom my four year old daughter will spend her formative years in in your state education system next year … In the main building … 55 children share 2 urinals and 2 toilets, the window frames are rotten and leak when it rains, the walls suffer from rising damp which ruins displays of children's work, mould grows on the walls and paint and plaster crumbles and falls from the walls. A recent visit from Calderdale Council, who came to see if the building could be redecorated, commented that it would be a total waste of time and money because the building was so 'sick'."
  How did the Secretary of State respond? In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 18 December 1995, the Minister said that the bid for the school to be rebuilt had been unsuccessful because the cost of repair would be cheaper than the cost of replacement. That and numerous other examples show how children are at risk in the classroom because of persistent capital underfunding by the Government.
  In and around my constituency—in the area of the new Bath and north-east Somerset unitary authority—the local authority's surveyors have identified those repair and maintenance works required in local schools in the immediate future. I have in my hand a 27-page document listing them all. Those immediate repair and maintenance needs total a staggering £7 million.
  Some of the most urgent work includes the need for rewiring at Culverhay school, Hayesfield school, Weston primary school and St. Gregory's school. Heating systems need to be improved at Weston All Saints junior school and St. Mary's Roman Catholic voluntary-aided school. Re-roofing is needed at Southdown junior school and Culverhay school and windows need replacing at Twerton Church of England junior school.
  All the schools that I have mentioned have numerous other problems that require immediate attention. I have listed only a few; yet this year the new unitary authority received only one third of its capital allocation bid—only £1.5 million compared with the need for repair and

  305
  maintenance alone of more than £7 million. It is hardly surprising that one senior officer told me this morning that local government is
  "not really even scratching the surface".
  In Lambeth, a survey carried out three years ago revealed that £26 million needed to be spent on education buildings in the next 10 years. Since then, however, it has been possible to spend only between £2 million and £3 million and the annual capital grant from the Department for Education and Employment this year allocates Lambeth a derisory £363,000. That position needs redressing and, sadly, it recurs throughout the country.
  I hope that the three education spokespeople from the three political parties represented on Lambeth council who are to visit the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), this afternoon will be able to persuade him of the need to tackle the problems of education buildings in their area.
  Leaking roofs, overcrowded classrooms and outside loos are, in part, a health and safety problem, but a more widespread and equally disturbing problem is that of schools not even equipped to teach the national curriculum. To teach the national curriculum successfully, very many existing buildings need adapting. Given the current tight restrictions, such changes are rarely possible.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch, admitted:
  "I acknowledge … that in recent years tight public expenditure survey settlements have meant that allocations available for improvement or replacement work have not been as high as some local authorities might have wished."— [Official Report, 23 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 872.]
  How right he was.
  It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the Department seems unwilling to repeat its 1986–87 survey of the school building stock in order to establish the current facts. There was a £2 billion backlog of repair and maintenance work at that time and some suggest that today it is more like £4 billion. According to the 1991 National Audit Office report entitled "Repair and Maintenance of School Buildings", the cost of maintenance is set to rise each year until 2000. Nothing that the Government have done since 1991 suggests that that prediction was wrong.
  Instead of spending money to bring schools up to standard, the Government seem intent on deregulating area requirements for teaching accommodation. That could remove a statutory barrier to overcrowded classrooms—perhaps that is what some in the education world understand by a "crammer". A letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education also revealed that health and safety regulations on minimum space requirements—which came into force in January this year—do not apply to pupils or to classrooms in schools. So children face larger classes in shabby buildings.
  The Minister might also like to consider the situation in further education and explain to students at FE colleges and universities why they, too, face larger classes, fewer books, aging equipment and shabby buildings. This year's Budget hit the further education sector particularly hard.
  306
  Last year's plans for capital funding have been reduced by £49 million or 31 per cent. in 1996–97 and the reduction will increase to £100 million or 63 per cent. in 1998–99.
  That is a blow to those further education colleges that need to attract students in order to get funding. For example, at the Henry Thornton community education centre in Lambeth the roof is leaking and the matching Further Education Funding Council funds for community education courses are in jeopardy unless the roof is repaired. The 1993 Hunter survey of buildings in the FE sector revealed that expenditure of about £839 million is needed for the first five years of incorporation. It found that many colleges had inherited a legacy of previous underinvestment, with building stock in poor condition and ill-suited to the learning needs of the 1990s.
  However, in August 1995 the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education assessed the need for capital investment in the FE sector and found that annual investment of about £40 million will be required to provide just the additional capacity and refurbish existing accommodation for the expanded student numbers. Colleges with increased student numbers also face the acute need to expand. Many have particular difficulties because they are old Victorian buildings on cramped town-centre sites, which increases the cost of providing the expansion.
  Yet by 1998 the Further Education Funding Council will no longer be able to maintain the equipment allocation at its present level, let alone provide the separate allocation to support building work. Mr. Chris Pratt, principal of Airedale and Wharfedale college in Leeds, said:
  "There is no doubt we will be forced to severely restrict growth. This … may kill off expansion altogether".
  That is just one of the many examples that I could present to the House.
  Capital funding in the higher education sector this year has also been severely cut from £347 million to £243 million—a decrease of 30 per cent. That has occurred despite massive rises in student numbers in recent years. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made a submission to the public expenditure survey in May 1995 drawing attention to the pressing need for extra funds for buildings and other capital expenditure, including a backlog of maintenance work totalling a mammoth £1.269 billion across the university system as a result of Government underfunding. Some £840 million extra is needed over three years to pay for badly needed spaces in lecture theatres, laboratories and libraries and £133 million is needed to cover the cost of complying with new health and safety regulations. One institution summed up the sentiments of the higher education sector by saying:
  "The 1995 Budget cuts have come at the end of a long and debilitating process and will have a significant impact on the longer term initiatives that are being pursued".
  In its recent letter to the Higher Education Funding Council, the Department simply states:
  "indicative provision for capital expenditure … has been reduced in the light of Government policy that capital goods and projects should, wherever possible, be financed through private sector schemes in line with the private finance initiative".
  In both the further and higher education sectors, the Government's PFI is no shortcut to better educational buildings for all: it is merely a commercial arrangement

  307
  which will not appeal to many businesses. As Peter Reader, head of public affairs at Southampton university, said:
  "PFI firms seem only to be interested in developing leisure facilities, but that's just a small part of what needs funding. PFI is an answer only for a limited area".
  That view is confirmed by Sir Christopher Bland, chairman of the private finance panel, who acknowledged that the PFI might be ill suited to non-commercial academic projects. He stated:
  "An income stream will continue to determine whether it can be a PFI project: the rules do not change".
  I was pleased to hear that during a meeting with the CVCP yesterday the Secretary of State agreed to look at the concerns that it has expressed about the PFI. I understand that there may be some developments on that front and they are very welcome.
  The Government's new initiative for schools—the school renewal challenge fund, which aims to involve private finance in educational buildings—will not help a great deal. The relatively small-scale school projects that are needed are unlikely to attract private developers. As with higher education, it seems likely that developers will be most interested in projects, such as sports complexes, with an obvious source of outside income. Proposals to use private sector cash are totally inadequate. Children's and students' safety should not depend on the good will of the private sector.
  The Government are introducing gimmick after gimmick into the education system, but they will not provide enough money to make schools safe for children. In the age of the information super-highway, school children have to use outside loos and students work in overcrowded, and at times unsafe, lecture halls. Decent buildings are vital if we are to meet high quality educational objectives. Buildings in a poor state of repair have a direct impact on the quality of learning, and failure to provide adequate maintenance eventually results in crisis management. Buildings that are in good repair encourage learning, helping to keep down truancy levels and boost morale. Badly maintained buildings encourage vandalism which, as well as reducing the quality of the teaching environment, increases cost.
  I urge the Government to invest in the building stock throughout the education sector. Schools, colleges and universities should be safe and fit places for teachers and lecturers to teach and pupils and students to learn. Safe, adequate buildings are an entitlement and not a luxury. Yet as time passes and underfunding persists, the decay of buildings in the education sector continues. It is time for the Government to halt that decay.
  1.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I
  congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on an extremely important issue. It was useful to hear the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I am only sad that there are not more hon. Members on the Opposition Benches— I always thought that education was at the top of their agenda.
  The hon. Member for Bath made a number of different points in his characteristically direct way. The common theme that ran through them was that problems are the
  308
  Government's responsibility—local authorities, schools, colleges and universities have been starved of the resources that they have sought to put matters right; the world would be rosy if only more money were available; and the taxpayer's pocket has, yet again, to be the source of that money.
  I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman with a few plain facts. It might be hard for him to admit this, but the truth is that, during this decade, substantial sums have been directed towards improving and renewing educational buildings. For 1996–97, we have announced record levels of support for capital programmes—just short of £700 million. Add to that the substantial support that we announced for the previous two years and one arrives at centrally available support totalling just short of £2 billion over the three-year period.
  The hon. Member for Bath should note that allocations for basic and exceptional basic need are much higher for 1996–97 than they have been in recent years— £6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995–96. That central support is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a limit of any kind on spending on school buildings. Local education authorities can, and do, add substantially to the sums available through grants and borrowing approvals by investing capital receipts and funds from their revenue budgets.
  We have made it easier for LEAs to do that in a number of ways. For example, for the two years from April 1996, they will be required to set aside only 25 per cent. of proceeds from the sale of surplus assets for debt redemption, as opposed to 50 per cent. as at present. That will mean that more money still will be available for new capital projects. As a result, we estimate that, since 1990, more than £5 billion has been spent on county, voluntary-aided and grant-maintained school buildings.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted some historic figures on capital spending. I say "historic" because he had to go back 20 years to find figures that came remotely near to meeting his case. Of course capital spending was higher in 1974. At that time, pupil numbers were much greater and were rising so rapidly that new buildings were needed to accommodate them. A closer look would reveal that history tells a rather different story about what happened next.
  Between 1974 and 1979, capital spending on schools fell to less than half the present figure in real terms— and we all remember who were sitting on this side of the Chamber between 1974 and 1979. By contrast, since the Conservatives came to office in 1979, capital spending on schools has increased by some 15 per cent. over and above inflation.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted from the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. I scarcely need to add, "selectively". It is perfectly true that the report notes that a minority of secondary schools and a rather smaller minority of primary schools suffer from "some shortfall in accommodation", but it notes also the efforts that have been made—they will continue to be made— to deal with the more serious problems. As the chief inspector states,
  "common sense would suggest, that effective teaching depends on more than the physical context in which the teacher works".
  It is, yet again, the same message—making the best possible use of the available resources is what counts.

  309
  In the further education sector, capital funding has risen from £151.8 million in 1993–94 to £159 million in 1995–96. Capital spending, moreover, has shot up since incorporation. Many further education colleges, using their own initiative, have taken advantage of their new independence to raise private finance. To date, FE institutions have raised more than £100 million.
  Higher education has, quite rightly, been one of the fastest-growing programmes in recent years. Universities have invested significant sums in their capital assets. The present aggregate level of borrowing amounts to more than £1.5 billion.
  The hon. Member for Bath expressed some anxiety about outside lavatories in some of our oldest school buildings. I remind him of something that I am sure he already knows—that it is for local authorities and school governors to set their priorities for capital work on the school buildings for which they are responsible. I do not decide which work proceeds and which does not in local authority schools—LEAs and governors do. The hon. Gentleman should not ask me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about why some work has been done while other work has not. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there are still schools where children have no choice but to use outside toilets, he should speak to his friends in local education authorities. They should be able to give him an answer.
  In the case of county or controlled schools, it is up to the LEA that maintains them to decide how high a priority to give such work. If the schools are voluntary aided, such work would be classed as minor, to be paid for from the formula allocation administered by the local education authority. I see that that comes as a great surprise to the Liberal Democrat education spokesman. Minor works and improvement/replacement formulae, and other funding sources—including receipts—have been available to LEAs for some years and it has been open to them to use those sources to meet their priorities. The hon. Member for Bath should ask his friends in local authorities what scope they have for efficiency savings. The hon.
  310
  Gentleman should ask also what efforts have been made to address the efficiency savings identified by the Audit Commission.
  The Government want to encourage a more imaginative approach to capital funding in schools. That is one reason for my announcement in December that we shall set up the schools renewal challenge fund; we want to encourage better and more prudent use of capital assets. The fund, which will operate for the financial year 1996–97, will assign resources on a competitive basis for the renewal, repair, replacement or improvement of school capital stock. Account will be taken of the urgency of the project, which should provide value for money while levering in an additional element of resources from non-Government sources, particularly through the private finance initiative—which the hon. Gentleman chose to rubbish, without having a great depth of knowledge of the initiative's extent and of its potential for our schools.
  Once again, the hon. Member was scaremongering. I want to put this on the record, in plain language that the hon. Gentleman will understand: health and safety is the responsibility of LEAs and governors. Will the hon. Gentleman please understand that our revised premises regulations will maintain each and every standard that bears on the health and safety of our children?
  The picture is far from the study in grey that the hon. Member painted. I believe that the hon. Gentleman, behind the rhetoric, knows what we know—that the Government have an excellent record on education spending. He might laugh, but our record contrasts with the policy that the Liberal Democrats promise. To what does that promise amount? We know now. I refer to the education section of a widely circulated document that has the words, "very limited circulation" on the front. It is spelt out as a point of weakness. Liberal Democrats
  "just want to throw money at education."
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed that that document is alive and kicking, and is living in the Liberal Democrat policy unit.
  It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Maastricht Treaty (Convergence Criteria)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with his EU counterparts on the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty. [12343]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have regular contacts with my counterparts from other member states, during which we discuss a wide range of European Union issues, including economic and monetary union.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State have regular contact with the Home Secretary, who wrote the foreword to a pamphlet from the Centre for Policy Studies which was published on Monday and which opposes monetary union? Does the Secretary of State agree that economic convergence will cause heavy unemployment and heavy new taxes?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the pamphlet, but I have no doubt that the Home Secretary's comments will be very much in line with the Government's view on that important issue. The whole question of convergence depends on whether there is a real and sustainable convergence of the countries involved. Clearly, such an important issue ought to be determined on the basis of confidence that such a policy would succeed with the objectives that have been laid down.
    Mr. Renton: Following that reply, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the convergence criteria were drafted by central bankers, but their implementation will depend on politicians who are elected by ordinary citizens? In that context, has he noticed in any recent discussions that his French, German or Italian counterparts think that the criteria should be revised?
    Mr. Rifkind: Different views have been offered by different people, but I have noted that the German Government in particular have made it clear that they attach supreme importance to the convergence criteria being satisfied. They have said that they have no intention of seeing any weakening in the convergence criteria, and I think that that is a responsible approach.
    Mr. Shore: Are not those convergence criteria just an arbitrary package of deflationary measures designed to achieve an unwanted, federalist objective of a single currency? Is it not time that the Government made plain to our partners in the European Community that we have no intention whatever of burying the pound sterling in a Euro-currency, either in 1999 or on any other occasion?
    Mr. Rifkind: The existence of the convergence criteria is a recognition that it is crucially important that the
    312
    question of a single currency should be determined on sound economic considerations, and not as a result of any political doctrine.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain whether it is his understanding that the third criterion—that we should have been in the exchange rate mechanism for two years before we can move any further towards a single currency—still applies?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have heard the view widely expressed that the changes in the exchange rate mechanism since that condition was laid down, and the fact that there is now a wide band between the various members of the ERM, mean that much less value can be attached to that condition than was the case in the past.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east following the Palestinian elections. [12344]
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the middle east peace process. [12348]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The elections which were held on 20 January were a very welcome development. We look forward to the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which are due to begin in May; and hope for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Burden: I join the Minister in welcoming the January elections. Will he join me in congratulating President Arafat on his victory, and in looking forward to the final status negotiations? Will he also join me in urging all parties to show flexibility on all the issues that must be the subject of the negotiations, including the question of Jerusalem?
    Mr. Hanley: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to those who carried out the recent elections. The very high turnout rebuffed those who rejected both the elections and the peace process. There was a clear and strong desire for democracy among the Palestinian people. While paying tribute to them and to President Arafat's role in the elections, I pay tribute also to Members of all parties in this House and another place who, with great dedication, helped to monitor the elections and reported back to me yesterday on their success.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Palestine Liberation Organisation failed to deliver the promises that it made in respect of the Palestinian national covenant, that would rightly be perceived as a breach of faith that could destabilise the peace process?
    Mr. Hanley: I certainly recognise the difficulties that the Palestinians will face in trying to achieve those commitments, but Chairman Arafat has said that he strongly believes that there is a need to amend the

    313
    covenant. My right hon. and learned Friend and I know full well from our recent direct discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister that altering the covenant would probably represent the highest confidence-boosting measure that could be achieved.
    Last week, Prime Minister Peres said that he would do all that he could to enable the Palestine National Council to meet. That will probably involve great security risks, and courage will have to be shown by the people of Israel to achieve what I think will be one of the greatest steps towards engendering more confidence in the peace process.
    Mr. Janner: The Minister met Prime Minister Shimon Peres last week. Will he now express the view—I am sure that it is shared by us all—that Mr. Peres is a man of great wisdom, courage and persistence who is to be congratulated on all that he has done? Did the Prime Minister tell him that it is his view, as well as that of all parties in Israel, that there can be no question of Jerusalem being anything other than the capital of the state of Israel? In those circumstances, why have the Government decided, apparently to save money, to close the British Council library in Jerusalem? That appears to me a stupid act, particularly at this time.
    Mr. Hanley: I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, about the courage and wisdom of Prime Minister Peres. I was most impressed on meeting him—his sincerity shines through.
    Our position on Jerusalem has not changed: it is a matter to be determined in the final status talks. It is in the interests of all parties that neither side should do anything to pre-empt their outcome; there the hon. and learned Gentleman and I may part company.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the peace process should now be bolstered by encouraging economical development in the region? In that context, will he build on the success that the British Government have had in encouraging trade agreements between the European Union and Israel, by taking action to ensure that the Arab trade boycott of Israel withers on the vine as fast as can possibly be managed?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has it right. The boycott is withering on the vine; I hope that it will be lifted completely. After all, Britain is Israel's third biggest trading partner. I am assured by the Israeli Trade Minister that British business men are no longer put off trading with Israel by the Arab boycott. The guidance given by the Department of Trade and Industry accurately reflects the facts, and we are actively encouraging business men to ignore the boycott.
    Mr. Fatchett: May I associate the Labour party with all the comments that have been made about the nature of the Palestinian elections, and the competence and honesty with which they were conducted? We look forward to the continuing development of the peace process through the final-status discussions.
    I am sure that the Minister agrees that the key to a comprehensive peace agreement in the middle east is an Israeli-Syrian peace accord. What steps are the Government taking—either individually, or collectively
    314
    with other European Union countries—to ensure that the peace negotiations continue and there is a prospect of real peace between the two countries in the next few months?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right: unless the Syrian track starts again, there can be no lasting peace in the middle east. I was very pleased when, despite the tragedy of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity to visit Damascus immediately after the funeral, and to encourage the restarting of the Syrian track. It seems that progress is now being made. We welcome the resumption of talks, and will encourage our European Union partners to provide economic underpinning for the peace process.

    White Paper on Europe
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which organisations he will invite representations in advance of the publication of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper on Europe. [12345]
    Mr. Rifkind: We welcome representations on the inter governmental conference from any organisation with an interest in it.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Foreign Secretary listen to more views than those of the Euro-sceptic right wing? Does he realise that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are broadly pro-Europe, although we see many faults that must be rectified and many improvements that must be made to the European Union? We are all sick of the increasingly vulgar and dangerous nationalism that emanates from members of the Foreign Secretary's party, both inside and outside Government.
    Mr. Rifkind: That would have been more convincing if it had not come from a member of a party that fought several general elections on the basis that it was trying to take us out of the European Union.
    Mr. David Howell: The proposal to publish a White Paper is welcome and robust. I fully understand that my right hon. and learned Friend will not wish to give details about the negotiating position, but may I ask him not to hesitate in setting out a strong anti-centralist, anti-collectivist approach to the European Union in the IGC? In particular, will he focus critically and practically—I am sure that he will—on such nebulous concepts as a common foreign and security policy for Europe, and other ideas that those who are less critical of Brussels are all too ready to accept?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that, on matters such as a common foreign and security policy, it is crucial for Europe—if it wishes to speak in the name of Europe— to do so because of a genuine identity of view, rather than, through artificial means, seeking to impose a consensus against the vital interests of individual member states. If there is genuine agreement on important issues, we can advance British interests by allowing the European Union to speak for the proposals involved; but, when British interests—or the interests of other countries—are at

    315
    variance with those of the majority, that must be respected if the European Union is to be true to its basic democratic values.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary consider inviting representations for the White Paper from GKN, which has just implemented the social chapter for its British work force by setting up a works council? Is he aware that its current newsletter describes that as a positive approach? If the Government cannot carry with them even such a generous supporter of Tory funds as GKN, why do they not drop their lonely opposition to the social chapter? Will they never recognise that it is impossible to build up competitiveness by keeping the work force in the dark, and that British citizens are entitled to the same right to know about the future of their companies as citizens of the continent?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is an important difference between my position and that of the hon. Gentleman. In my view, the question is not whether it is desirable for GKN to introduce a works council; the question is whether that decision should be made by employers and employees in the company, or imposed by the Government or the European Union. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that wishes to ignore the views of employers and employees in British companies, and seeks to impose a rigid structure throughout Europe, regardless of the damage that that would do to British jobs and prosperity. He cannot escape responsibility for that view.
    Mr. Forman: As well as welcoming representations on those important matters, is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to look again at the need for fuller public information on such questions? These are complicated issues and many of us on the Conservative Benches feel that there is a need for the British Government to take more of a lead in that respect.
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, and that is one reason why we were happy to respond to the views of three Select Committees, both of this House and of another place, and have agreed to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference, which I believe will respond to the reasonable point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Special Export Licensing Procedures
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria his Department has for recommending countries for inclusion on the list of countries for which special export licensing procedures are required; and what plans his Department has to review these criteria. [12346]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): The list is drawn up in accordance with foreign policy objectives, international understandings or embargoes to which we are party, the non-proliferation credentials of the country concerned and the effectiveness of its export controls. A revised list was published on 19 July 1995 and is printed in the Official Report. The list is kept under constant review.
    Mr. Cousins: I have the list of countries with me. It is necessary to stop countries being used as a staging post
    316
    to pass on the means of war to unacceptable regimes. Therefore, can the Minister explain why Israel, which we have just been discussing, is included on the list, but well-known and well-established staging posts such as Jordan, Singapore, Portugal and Cyprus are not? Is it that the Foreign Office is still happy to be the kind of mouse that knows that there is a black market in weapons and is not willing to do enough to stop it?
    Mr. Davis: The answer is straightforward. I suspect that I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The list covers countries which are of concern across the full range of dual-use goods or are subject to specific embargoes. Other countries may be of concern in a limited fashion and they are dealt with in a specific way related to that limited fashion. If there are particular countries that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be on the list, he should write to me about it.

    European Institutions (Accountability)
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the accountability of European Community institutions to national Parliaments; and if he will make a statement. [12347]
    Mr. David Davis: Within the Council of Ministers, which is the primary decision-making institution in the European Union, national Ministers are accountable to their respective national Parliaments.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the existing accountability of European institutions is inadequate and does he agree that that problem is best addressed by enhancing the scrutiny role of national Parliaments rather than by giving any more powers to the European Parliament?
    Mr. Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. We must look as a priority at means of improving the democratic accountability of the European Community. The primary focus of democratic legitimacy in the Union is national Parliaments, not the European Parliament. Let me quote the German Federal constitutional court on that point, because it was pretty informative. It said:
    "The European Union…is a union of democratic states. Where it assumes sovereign tasks…it is first and foremost for the national peoples of the Member States democratically to legitimise this via their national parliaments."
    We are actively considering options for enhancing the role of national Parliaments.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister mentioned the importance of national Parliaments and Ministers, but does he agree that accountability of Ministers to the House was not strengthened when, against the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Government supported automatic referral of any EC document to a Committee Upstairs? Does he further agree that that would not have been so bad but for the fact that several requests from that Select Committee for debates on the Floor of the House have been declined by Her Majesty's Government? Would it not be more in keeping with the protocol to the treaty, which the Government

    317
    have supported and signed, if the Government were to pay more attention to the views of the Select Committee, which comprises hon. Members of all views, and if their actions became more consistent with their words?
    Mr. Davis: As someone who has appeared before the Select Committee, I think that, from time to time, its scrutiny is pretty ferocious. With regard to paying attention to the Select Committee's views, the hon. Gentleman will remember that I and the Government generally have supported, for example, its recommendation that we incorporate declaration 13 into the treaty, or make it legally binding. That will add enormously to the scrutiny capacity of the House.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the institutions of the European Union would receive greater sympathy, not only in the House but in the country more widely, if they did less but did it better?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. and learned Friend quotes almost exactly the motto of the current President of the Commission, Mr. Santer, and we agree with him entirely. The Union does much better, in the eyes of the people of Europe, when it does not meddle in the nooks and crannies of the nation states; when it pays proper respect to the sovereignty of those nation states; and when it carries out legislation to a better quality than has been the case.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to help the Governments of Pakistan and India resolve the conflict in Kashmir. [12349]
    Mr. Hanley: We have consistently encouraged both sides to resolve their differences over Kashmir through bilateral negotiation. It is not for us to prescribe a solution, but we are ready to help if both sides ask us.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he shed any light on the missile attack on Kahuta, a border town in Azad Kashmir, which took place at the end of January, where the missile landed on a mosque, killing 18 people? Will the Minister also comment on attacks on leaders of the Hurriyet conference? Surely he agrees that it will be impossible to move forward to a peaceful resolution of the continuing conflict in Kashmir unless the perpetrators of those outrages are identified and brought to book.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's horror at the incident concerned. We regret very much the loss of life and continue to urge restraint on both sides. We would expect the United Nations military observer group in India and Pakistan to report to the Secretary-General in the normal manner on the exact circumstances. It may help the House if I repeat briefly what we believe the best way forward on Kashmir should involve. There should be simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.
    Mr. Colvin: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend said about the Simla agreement and his earlier
    318
    remarks about Britain's willingness to help, if both parties—India and Kashmir—requested it, would Britain be prepared to chair and mediate such talks under the Simla agreement umbrella? As Pakistan is once more a member of the British Commonwealth, does he feel that the Commonwealth has a role to play in trying to find a solution to this on-going problem?
    Mr. Hanley: I know that our wish for a solution to the dispute is shared by all members of the Commonwealth. As I said before, it is not for us to say what the solution should be, but we are—I confirm this to my hon. Friend— ready to consider any help that is asked for, as long as both sides do the demanding.
    Mr. Watson: The Minister betrayed, in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), the narrowness of the Government's approach when he talked of "both sides". He then said, in answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), that it was not for his Government to decide what the outcome might be. Does he accept that there is not simply a choice between the Governments of Pakistan and of India, and that approximately 12 million Kashmiri people may decide that independence is the appropriate road? Will he ensure, when he discusses with the Governments of India and of Pakistan, that independence is included in the discussions, and that, should there be a referendum, independence is one of the options?
    Mr. Hanley: Of course we recognise that finding a solution will not be easy, but we shall continue to urge both countries to try to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation. I add that, unless both countries agree with any solution, there will be no peace.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Apart from advice on how to win their matches, has my right hon. Friend offered any advice to the England cricket XI who are now in India for the world cup competition on their security, bearing in mind the fact that the Australian and West Indian sides have already said that they are not prepared to play in Sri Lanka? Is he worried about the situation, or are they safe?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend's love of cricket is the highest in the land. We are not aware of any specific threats to England's cricketers or supporters, but our high commission in Islamabad and our deputy high commission in Karachi are in close contact with the England team and the world cup organisers. In cricket terms, I think that the threat is to the Pakistani cricketers.

    Iraq (Sanctions)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the consequences of UN sanctions on Iraq. [12350]
    Mr. Hanley: UN sanctions are designed to ensure that Iraq fulfils the Gulf war ceasefire terms. The strategy appears to be working. Iraq has recognised Kuwait and the UN-demarcated border and agreed to participate in discussions with the UN, which we hope will result in

    319
    Iraqi acceptance of UN Security Council resolution 986. That would greatly help to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Dalyell: On sanctions, how is it right that Ministers criticised by Sir Richard Scott should have seven days' notice, and that civil servants apparently criticised by Sir Richard Scott should have no days' notice? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his normal courtesy in giving notice of his supplementary question. Unfortunately, that was not it. I therefore suggest that he waits for the statement next week and that, if he has any further questions, he waits for his Adjournment debate tonight.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment this evening at 10.15 pm.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as long as Saddam Hussein and his military junta are in control in Iraq, the middle east peace will always be fragile, and that that is why we must continue to take whatever action is deemed necessary to contain that instability?
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry; it was remiss of me. The notice given by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) brings this question to an end. I therefore cannot ask the Minister to respond.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States and European counterparts over the discovery of mass graves of victims of mass murder in Bosnia. [12351]
    Mr. Rifkind: I am in regular contact with my United States and European counterparts about implementation of the peace agreement, which obliges the parties to co-operate fully with the international war crimes tribunal, including by giving it unrestricted access to all sites and persons. We strongly support its work.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that some of the mass graves so far discovered in Bosnia are only one sign of the appalling crimes and atrocities carried out, in the main, on the instructions of the Serbian warlords and, in particular, following the capture of Srebrenica last July? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the international community and IFOR have an obligation to ensure that all the people held responsible for war crimes in former Yugoslavia—yes, including the parts not controlled by the Serbs, although most people would agree that the bulk of the crimes and atrocities were carried out on the Serbian side—are brought before the international war crimes tribunal? What efforts will be made to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Rifkind: So far, 45 Serbs and seven Croats have been indicted as alleged war criminals. IFOR has clear
    320
    instructions to detain any individuals indicted by the tribunal should they be encountered during operations and, if they are apprehended, to transfer them to the tribunal.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a grotesque paradox if octogenarians were prosecuted for war crimes in this country and the people responsible for the appalling atrocity just mentioned were not?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not find it necessary to make a comparison. I would simply say that the people who have been indicted as war criminals should, if it is physically possible, be brought to trial on the charges that they face.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that public support for NATO forces' presence in former Yugoslavia is largely based on the natural revulsion of this country's people at ethnic cleansing? If that support is to be maintained, should not NATO be giving the utmost active support to the people investigating war crimes, including securing evidence and taking steps to apprehend war criminals?
    Mr. Rifkind: NATO is indeed giving active co-operation. IFOR will conduct aerial reconnaissance over the region as well as foot patrols. It will seek to assist the war crimes tribunal with regard to any evidence of, for example, war graves that might be linked to prosecutions that are being brought by the tribunal.
    Lady Olga Maitland: What consultations has my right hon. and learned Friend had with NATO representatives regarding the protection of the mass graves as they come to light? Is he aware that unless the graves are protected, evidence may be covered up, and the perpetrators of those atrocities may never be brought to justice?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although on occasions it will be difficult, every effort needs to be made by those in Bosnia-Herzegovina to ensure that any graves discovered are kept in a condition that will enable them to be properly investigated, so that any further evidence of war crimes can be properly established.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Red Cross has today confirmed that more than 3,000 people were killed following the fall of Srebrenica. I am sure that he will agree that such appalling atrocities underline the fact that there can be no prospect of reconciliation in Bosnia until those responsible for such slaughter are brought to justice. Will he therefore consider whether there could be a more proactive role for IFOR in apprehending suspected war criminals? In particular, does he agree that it would be unsatisfactory if only the lower ranks of the Bosnian Serb army were charged, while the high command such as General Mladic escaped arrest?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have no reason to believe that any such distinction is made by the war crimes tribunal. As the subject of co-operation by IFOR has been raised, I should mention the fact that Judge Goldstone, who is in charge of the war crimes tribunal, has said that he is satisfied with IFOR's response to his request for co-operation. Clearly if he were not satisfied and had specific proposals, we would

    321
    be very sensitive to any request of his. But he is satisfied that he is receiving all the co-operation that he requires from IFOR at present.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that, judging by the comments from both sides, the House believes that war criminals should be prosecuted. Does he agree that international law has been so abused and flouted in this case that we must send a clear message that in any future conflict such behaviour will not be tolerated by the world community, that action will be taken, and that war crimes will not simply be brushed under the carpet in the interests of bringing people back to peace?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it is salutary to realise that although we all appreciate the horrors of war, sometimes in war actions are performed which go even beyond the normal atrocities that are expected in wartime. Where that happens, and where there is evidence pointing to the guilt of certain persons, it is right and proper that the international community should have a structure for apprehending such persons and bringing them to justice.

    UN Peacekeeping Operations
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the financing of United Nations peacekeeping operations. [12352]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): United Nations peacekeeping operations are financed by contributions from all UN member states, levied according to a scale of assessments. We attach importance to prompt and full payment of assessed contributions by all member states.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister think that the United Nations has a peacekeeping role to play in the sovereignty dispute between Greece and Turkey over the island of Imia, in the Aegean sea? Or does he accept, as has the Government of France this week, that sovereignty over the group of islands was clearly determined by the agreement between Italy and Turkey in 1932, and by the Paris peace agreement of 1947, whereby sovereignty was transferred to Greece? Does he agree that it is neither lawful nor helpful for any one state unilaterally to abrogate such agreements and that, in the words of the time-honoured diplomatic dictum, pacta sunt servanda?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his supplementary question, and even more grateful that he stuck to it. I am especially grateful because I must confess that I had to get help in translating the Latin tag, which apparently means that treaties should be honoured. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in that sentiment. However, in the dispute between Greece and Turkey over the small and uninhabitable island of Imia, the question of sovereignty has not been resolved. It is for the parties to the dispute to resolve it peacefully between themselves. I am deeply concerned by the actions that have been taken so far, and I believe that today there is a threat of more military action. It is very important, not least to NATO, to which both those countries belong, that the problem be
    322
    solved peacefully. In due course the United Nations may have to play a part, but at the moment I hope that the two parties can sort things out themselves.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce Britain's £27 million a year contribution to the peacekeeping force in Cyprus, which would also, more importantly, work towards reunifying the island, is to adopt a demilitarisation proposal? Is he aware that such a proposal has recently received the support of the United States Senate? Does he agree that that would go a long way to solving some of the problems between the two communities?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is extremely important that a solution for Cyprus is found. I am not sure whether demilitarisation will prove to be the panacea for something that has taken us so long to try to resolve, but it is certainly worthy of our close consideration.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that, even as this House is sitting, the United Nations is in a state of financial crisis, the peacekeeping budget is being raided to fund the UN's general operations and the entire organisation is virtually on the point of collapse? What pressure will the Government bring to bear on Governments such as the United States whose outstanding UN bill is enormous? Will the Government specifically support Boutros Boutros-Ghali's call for an extraordinary emergency meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the reform of UN finances?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the state of the United Nations finances is disastrous and must be sorted out. At the moment, the UN is owed about £1.7 billion of its peacekeeping budget, of which £816 million is owed by the United States of America. A further £580 million or so of the UN's general budget is owed. That is an intolerable burden and must be sorted out. Under the European Union, Great Britain and France have put forward four proposals to try to solve the problems. They are: first, to tighten penalties on non-payers; secondly, to accelerate repayment of arrears; thirdly, to reform the scales of assessment; and, fourthly, to tighten control of UN expenditure. If the EU initiative succeeds, it will not be necessary to hold an extraordinary general meeting. Unless some action is taken in the next few months, the United Nations will face a financial crisis, which could threaten its future.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dispute in the Aegean is not only about a single uninhabited island but is a wide-ranging dispute, which if allowed to get out of hand would have grave consequences for peace in the region? Does he further agree that Turkey has given no good reason for abrogating its international agreements, which have held for more than half a century, and that it should return to honouring what it has honoured in practice for 50 years?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the dispute in the Aegean threatens world peace. The prospect of two NATO nations on the eastern flank of NATO coming so close to major conflict must cause us all grave concern. I do not share my hon. Friend's view of the merits of the case. It is far from

    323
    clear whether Turkey or Greece is responsible. Indeed, we should be concentrating not on that, but on the need to find a peaceful solution to the settlement. We should get involved not in the merits of one side's action or the other's, but urge them to negotiate a peaceful solution and not fight each other over that ridiculously small island.

    United Nations (Reform)
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the United Nations. [12353]
    Mr. Rifkind: Britain has been at the forefront of recent efforts to reform the United Nations, producing initiatives on restructuring and improvement in many areas and on tackling the organisation's serious financial crisis.
    Ms Corston: What are the Government doing to improve and extend the capacity for preventative diplomacy in the United Nations? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that swift action must be taken immediately to prevent the escalation of killings in Burundi and ensure that those responsible for violence and massacre are brought to account?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Lady that preventive diplomacy must become a more frequent aspect of the UN's activities. With regard to Burundi, the United Kingdom is at present chairing the Security Council and we have invited the Secretary-General to develop further his ideas for anticipating problems that might arise, so that any steps that could responsibly be taken at this stage to minimise the risk of collapse within that country can be taken now, rather than allowing the UN simply to react to events as they occur.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britain's initiative a few years ago in calling a special meeting of the Security Council to examine the reform of the UN was one of the best things that had happened for some time in the area? Is he also aware that the planning of peacekeeping operations is remarkably amateurish and inefficient? What new proposals is Britain putting forward on that front? Does my right hon. and learned Friend support the Canadian proposal for a small standby force to be available to the Secretary-General?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has been at the forefront in making practical suggestions for improving the UN's ability to deal with the huge increase in peacekeeping activities that has occurred since the end of the cold war. I am not persuaded by the Canadian proposal, or by proposals from other quarters, for a permanent standing force, because one never knows in advance what particular military skills are appropriate to an emergency. In Angola and Rwanda, for example, the logistical, engineering and military capabilities of the United Kingdom were required, while an infantry or combat role may be required in other areas. It is better for countries to advise the Secretary-General of the kind of help that they are prepared to give and then to respond quickly if the Secretary-General requires their assistance.

    Russian Federation
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss security problems within the Russian Federation. [12354]
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the Russian Foreign Minister at the peace implementation conference in London on 8 and 9 December.
    Mr. Jones: Would the Secretary of State care to define what constitutes the legitimate use of force in order to retain the integrity of the Russian empire? Does the indiscriminate bombing of cities and villages form a part of that legitimate use of force?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom certainly does not support that use of force, and we hope that the Russian Government will seek to resolve their internal problems by a peaceful dialogue and that those concerned with political reform will bring the conflict to an end. That would be far more likely to achieve a lasting solution than a purely military approach.

    International Economy
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities for improving Britain's position in the international economy. [12355]
    Mr. Hanley: It is a key Foreign and Commonwealth Office long-term objective to promote and protect British economic interests overseas.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Minister agree that the proposed Helms-Burton legislation in the United States Congress is totally unacceptable? Will it not have an adverse effect on the British economy on a world scale? Will it not also be an unjustifiable attack on free trade if British companies which want to trade with Cuba are penalised? If the boot were on the other foot, the United States would never tolerate such interference. What are the Government doing about it?
    Mr. Hanley: The Government encourage free trade, but there are certain circumstances in which it is right that it should be restricted to encourage reform. The hon. Gentleman's comments will, I am sure, be heard by the Americans.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we strengthen our business ties not only with EU countries, but with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States? Does he agree that that is important because we have not only a common language, but common business practices and a common English legal heritage?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we concentrate on our key markets, but not exclusively so. Commercial work by the FCO now involves some 35 per cent. of all our front-line overseas staff. There are 218 commercial posts in 140 markets, and

    325
    14 new commercial posts were opened last year, with an extra 100 staff slots for commercial work overseas. I might add that the United Kingdom is succeeding so well that it now attracts 40 per cent. of all inward investment from the United States and Japan. We must be doing something very right.
    Ms Quin: Has not the Foreign Office dismally failed to protect the most useful parts of its budget in the recent budgetary settlement? The valuable work in boosting Britain abroad is being undermined by savage cuts in the British Council and the BBC World Service and we have even seen the withdrawal of funding from the Council of Europe's Youth Foundation. Was the failure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to protect all that valuable work the result of right-wing dogma or simply incompetence?
    Mr. Hanley: No Government are exempt from their duty to make sure that the national economy of the United Kingdom is improving and ever improving.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Prime Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [12356]
    Mr. Rifkind: I met Shimon Peres on 1 February. We discussed the excellent state of our relations with Israel, the welcome continuation of progress towards peace in the middle east, the on-going talks between Israel and Syria and the implementation of the interim agreement.
    Mr. Luff: When my right hon. and learned Friend met the Prime Minister, did he discuss with him the excellent state of relations between Israel and Jordan? Does he agree that Syria needs to learn from the experience of Israel that peace is about more than merely the absence of war?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I think that is, indeed, the case. Part of the negotiations that are taking place between Israel and Syria are about what the future relations, including economic relations, between Syria and Israel might be in the event of a comprehensive peace in the region. That would offer great prospects for developing the economies of both countries.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not one of the most encouraging prospects that of using in other parts of the middle east Israeli expertise in matters such as greening the desert? Will the Foreign Secretary do all that he can to ensure that doors are opened for the interchange of such expertise across the region?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that that objective is already fully understood and agreed between Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. That is one of the most encouraging developments of recent times. Clearly, if the same principles could apply to the other countries in the region with regard to their relationship with Israel, the economic prospects for the region as a whole would be substantially enhanced.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that some of us heard a memorable address by Mr. Peres in the Palace last week, in which he was positive about the developments? He reaffirmed that Jerusalem was an open city for all faiths, but he also reaffirmed that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to the earlier question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Why has the British Council closed its facility in Jerusalem?
    Mr. Rifkind: The future of the library in Jerusalem is an internal matter for the British Council. It is not a ministerial decision, nor should it have been. The Government's policy on Jerusalem is that we are entering a sensitive phase with regard to the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The British Government, along with many other western Governments, are not considering any change of their policy with regard to Jerusalem because we believe that changes in whatever direction would be unhelpful when these most difficult negotiations are about to begin.

    Entry Clearance Procedures
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to improve the entry clearance procedures for the issue by United Kingdom embassies abroad of visas to foreign visitors. [12357]
    Mr. Hanley: Our entry clearance operations overseas are constantly under review to ensure that a high standard of service at all posts is maintained and to make improvements whenever and wherever possible.
    Mr. Rendel: The embassy in Moscow asks visa applicants to stay in the street or courtyard outside sometimes for up to a week in sub-zero temperatures. Does the Minister agree that that compares unfavourably with some of our European neighbours, who run an appointment system, which seems a much more civilised way of running a visa application system?
    Mr. Hanley: I am aware of the problems at our embassy in Moscow. The week before Christmas I went to Moscow specifically to see the visa operation and authorise alterations which are currently taking place to accommodate people who previously had to wait in the open air. I hope that they will now be under cover. A new visa section, possibly five years down the line, will provide much better accommodation for them.
    The main problem in Moscow is the extremely high demand. It has increased by some 300 per cent. in the past three years alone. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. The conditions in all our embassies should be acceptable to our customers. We believe that they deserve the very best service and that we are achieving that.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while everyone understands the difficult nature of the work of the immigration authorities he should take note of the difficulties that some people in many parts of the world who may travel hundreds, or even thousands, of miles to present their cases for visas only to fail to get past the door because they are told there that their case
    **

    327
    does not stand up and it is no good even putting it to the authorities properly? Could some written procedure be established to overcome that sort of misery?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right that people often have to make long journeys to have interviews, but we accept written applications and give general guidance, which is not binding but merely tries to be helpful, so that people can decide whether they should take the sort of journey that he mentioned. To put into context the scale of the operation, in the last year for which we have figures, 1994, there were some 20.6 million visits to the United Kingdom. There were 1.32 million applications for visas. Just under 1 million short-term visas were granted. The refusal rate is small compared with the number of visitors who come to our shores. We must ensure that people do not spend time or money, or suffer inconvenience or severe trouble, in getting to a particular post. We must try to ensure that we reduce that problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Mr. Gerrard: Surely the Minister will accept the point that has just been raised that it is not right for people to be told unofficially that their applications will be refused? Those people do not turn up in the refusal statistics. There is no mechanism for appeal now and the only way that such cases come to light is if those people have relatives in this country who contact hon. Members. People ought to have the right to apply and not to be put off by an official from so doing.
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not give guidance to try to help people to reduce the cost and time that they might otherwise experience. He gave the impression that visas are issued only if people contact hon. Members. There were 6,000 contacts with Members of the House last year. We take all the evidence into account before deciding whether a person's visa application is accepted or rejected. It is not right to say that we should not give general guidance, which is a most helpful procedure and welcomed by the majority of people who ask for it.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of my constituents suffer disappointment when visa applications for their relatives or parents to visit this country, when they come from Africa or Asia, are turned down? Does he agree that people who get visitor's visas to come to this country and overstay their welcome or disappear do a grave disservice to their fellow countrymen and women because they make the decision-making process that much more difficult for Foreign Office staff?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entry clearance officers, who do a superb job in posts abroad, are trained to a level to which they have never been trained before. They take on their tasks often in difficult circumstances and uncomfortable surroundings very willingly and they try to be as honourable and accurate as they possibly can. Of course there will be certain people who are disappointed, but I can assure my hon. Friend that entry clearance officers use the very best judgment. The entry clearance manager checks all rejections and Dame Elizabeth Anson then considers a scientifically selected random number of rejections to make sure that they are properly carried out.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the middle east peace process. [12358]
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [12361]
    Mr. Hanley: I refer the hon. Lady to the answers that I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier.
    Mrs. Prentice: I appreciate the answers that the Foreign Secretary has given already, but does he agree that both Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat deserve great praise for the continuation of the peace process? Does he share our concern about the shootings of Palestinian children by an Israeli settler at the weekend and will he do all that he can to urge both sides to do what they can to prevent any continuation of such violence?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Lady for joining in the tributes to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. They have been not only honourable but courageous. I would add into that group Yasser Arafat, whose courage is certainly there for all to see. Of course we condemn utterly the violence to which the hon. Lady referred. She is right to be concerned about any continuing violence. Of course it does not help the peace process and, in individual cases, it is a tragedy.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister share Labour Members' concern about the progress of the Syrian-Israeli and the Lebanese-Israeli peace talks? Will he remind all the parties to those peace talks that the Madrid initiative was called on a land-for-peace basis, which was the platform on which the Israeli Government stood in the elections? In relation to land for peace, will he remind all parties that they should not seek to make any security, geographical or economical gains at the expense of other parties?
    Mr. Hanley: I can do no better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier about the Syrian track. Of course negotiations will have to take place, and compromises may well be necessary which are uncomfortable for one side or the other. However, I believe that good will on both sides can achieve a lasting peace in the middle east.

    International War Crimes Tribunal
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the international war crimes tribunal for the former Republic of Yugoslavia. [12359]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the House, 45 Serbs and seven Croats have been indicted so far. The first trial

    329
    of the war crimes tribunal will take place against Dusko Tadic, a guard in the Omarska prisoner of war camp, and has been set for 18 March.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the Dayton agreement, all parties will have to co-operate with the tribunal? What if the parties refuse to honour those obligations? Can the Minister say, for example, that sanctions will be imposed against states that give refuge to criminals who have been indicted for crimes in the former republic?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, all states have a duty to co-operate fully with the war crimes tribunal and to deliver to it the people whom it has indicted. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what sanctions, if any, the international community will impose should states refuse to do so; that would have to be extremely carefully considered. It is of great importance that the war crimes tribunal is properly supported by all countries.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What are the prospects that the really big fish—Mladic and Karadzic—will be brought before the tribunal?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is extremely important that everybody concerned is prepared to honour the duty that each state must deliver to justice those indicted by the war crimes tribunal. Those gentlemen have been so indicted, and they must be delivered for trial.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the Dayton peace conference seems to have failed to address properly the problem of war crimes in Bosnia? Does he agree that those who sponsored the peace conference specifically excluded the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries and their elected spokesmen? Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government supported that exclusion? Will he also confirm that the exclusion was also agreed by European Union Foreign Ministers, who met in co-operation, and that one of the Ministers who supported the exclusion of the paramilitaries and their elected spokesmen was Mr. Richard Spring, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not aware that anybody was excluded under the Dayton agreement who should have been indicted by the war crimes tribunal. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, I think that the exclusion should be reviewed. However, I am not aware that that is the case. As I said to the House earlier, those who have committed war crimes and those who have been indicted by the tribunal must be brought to justice.

    Sudan
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken in relation to reconvening the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development peace talks on Sudan. [12360]
    Mr. Hanley: Britain has joined the friends of IGADD, who are working to support its peace initiative. The friends of IGADD—composed of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy and Norway—have offered various forms of support, including financial support.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the two main factors that have failed to ensure that peace is achieved in Sudan are the overwhelming poverty in southern Sudan and the allegations of human rights atrocities by the northern Sudanese? Will we do everything to ensure that progress can be made on those two fronts so that we can see genuine peace and democracy in Sudan?
    Mr. Hanley: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We continue to be deeply concerned about the appalling human rights record in Sudan and, with our partners in IGADD, we will continue to do whatever we can to help.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects on the civilian population of Sierra Leone of recent events; and if he will make a statement. [12363]
    Mr. Hanley: We welcome the new head of state's assurance that he intends to maintain the election timetable. We remain convinced that a civilian democratic rule offers the best prospect of peace and prosperity, and we will continue to support the democratic transition and efforts to resolve the internal conflict which has caused so much suffering.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that answer, which I am sure will be appreciated both here and in Sierra Leone. More Sierra Leoneans live in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. Can the Minister make further inquiries of the Sudanese Government about whether they have stopped the appalling atrocities that are occurring, not in Freetown, which is relatively safe, but in rural parts of the country? According to recent information, mutilation, rape and killing is occurring in great severity on a daily basis, and has so far been unreported.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that thousands of civilians have been killed and that there is evidence of appalling atrocities being committed. Half a million people, between 10 and 20 per cent. of the population, have been displaced internally or are refugees in Côte d'lvoire, Guinea and Liberia. Military expenditure has increased while revenue from taxes, agriculture and mining has dried up. That is a terrible waste and, frankly, no way in which to repair what could be a beautiful country. In the interests of not only right hon. and hon. Members but of the Sierra Leoneans who happen to be in the United Kingdom, we must try to help the country to reach a solution.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance because one of the responsibilities of the House is to hold the Executive to account, but I believe that the House will soon be faced by a situation in which the rights of the official Opposition and of all Back Benchers may be diminished because of the way in which the Government are approaching a certain issue.
I am referring to the report of Lord Justice Scott—a report of more than 1,800 pages, which has taken three years to prepare. We have been told that that report will be published on 15 February. We now learn, however, that the Government have amassed a vast machinery to interpret the report in the way that Ministers wish, at public expense, of course.
The Ministers involved have received copies of the report and they have eight days to find ways of shifting the blame. I understand that the civil servants involved will have just six hours' sight of the report, despite the fact that it affects their careers. Moreover, Ministers have failed to respond to a request from Her Majesty's official Opposition for sight of a copy of the report on Privy Council terms. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what you can do to ensure that Members of the House, and in particular the official Opposition, are not deliberately disadvantaged by the procedures being adopted by the Government.
Madam Speaker: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady has said, which I am sure will have been heard, or at least should have been heard with interest and concern in all quarters of the House.
I understand that the Scott report will be presented to the House by the President of the Board of Trade. It is entirely for the President to decide what arrangements, if any, should be made to allow various interested parties to see embargoed copies of the report before it is published, and before any related statement is made in the House.
All I would say is that, in my experience, the questioning on any statement is much better focused when some steps have been taken to enable Opposition spokesmen and minority party spokesmen to have access some time in advance to the text of complicated reports, provided steps are taken to maintain confidentiality. In addition, I think it is helpful for such reports to be made available in the Vote Office for a short period before any statement is made, so that Members generally have a chance to read at least the summary of recommendations or conclusions. But as I have already indicated, this is a matter for the Minister and I have no power to intervene.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. There can be no further point of order. I have given a very clear ruling of my opinion on that issue, and we must now leave it at that. I will take no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it more than adequately and I have expressed my point of view on it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: This is a genuinely completely different point of order—on the same subject, but a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the rights of citizens who are civil servants, who, according to all the reports that we have had this morning, find themselves in a fundamentally different position if they are named in the report—
Madam Speaker: I can answer that point of order right away. I have no responsibility for anybody outside this House. I understand what the position may be in relation to others, but I have no authority to intervene. I wish to safeguard the interests of the House and I shall do so, and have done so, to the best of my ability.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, in matters such as this, it is essential that you as Speaker receive an advance copy of any documents, so that you can ensure that there is orderly procedure in the House? You will be aware that when in the past Ministers have misled the House, personal statements were arranged. Will you confirm that you will have seen a copy and you will be able to arrange for personal statements to be made at the earliest opportunity?
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot confirm anything of the kind. I have not at this stage seen a copy.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On an unrelated point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to my point of order yesterday, would you tell us whether further inquiries have been carried out into the issuing of a pass to Mr. Barry Joseph?
Madam Speaker: Yes. I have carried out further inquiries. I repeat what I said yesterday—that the staff member in question has had a pass, to my knowledge, for some 10 years from the Member concerned. There is nothing untoward in him having a pass from a Member of this House, provided the relevant interests have been declared in the appropriate place. There are no rules, there are no regulations, there are no procedures to prohibit this. It is up to the Member concerned to determine whom he employs as a staff member.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 18 January 1983, a predecessor of yours condemned the Government for the selective leaking of, and briefing of the press on, the Franks report before publication. I think that it would be your view that that would apply equally in relation to the Scott report, because there is an indication that there is selective leaking and briefing, to try to brainwash the media in advance of the publication—
Madam Speaker: That is a similar point of order. If the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at my statement, he will see that it is covered there by the word "embargoed".
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that we

333
reached Question 21 today. Is that the first time in your memory that advice you gave the previous day—that there should be short answers and short questions—has actually been taken?
Madam Speaker: No. That is not quite the point. I expected to get to Question 21 today—it was marked on my Order Paper—because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is particularly good and speedy at answering questions. It is a very good Department in that respect and I am delighted with its Ministers because we always move down the Order Paper very rapidly and very briskly when they are at the Dispatch Box. Is there another point of order? No. What a pity.

Cold Climate Allowance
3.39 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased cost of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith.
When I curled up in a sleeping bag in one of the rooms in the House of Commons some three weeks ago, I did not expect to be introducing this measure in adverse weather conditions. I neither anticipated nor asked for such weather, although many people will have noticed that the Government's response to this month's cold climatic conditions was much speedier than during the festive season. I refer to the states of emergency that have been declared in Dumfries and in Galloway and to the fact that Ministers have been sent by helicopter—albeit unsuccessfully—to try to deal with the problems there.
Hon. Members will recall that when I first entered Parliament in the 1970s, I argued for the eradication of fuel poverty. When I said that deaths could occur from hypothermia or cold-related illnesses, I was accused of scaremongering and probably shroud waving—as my secretary remarked this morning. We are no longer in that position. The issue cannot be relegated to the category of scaremongering: the hard facts are there for all to see.
Last year 239 Scots died of hypothermia during a relatively mild winter. I note from today's Order Paper that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has tabled early-day motion 348, which points out that, according to the Government's own statistics, hypothermia was recorded as the cause of death of more than 300 United Kingdom pensioners in 1994. Each death certificate that attributes death to hypothermia is a blot on the social conscience of all legislators.
The Bill that I am proposing is endorsed by Members of Parliament from all over the United Kingdom. We live in an energy-rich country and no one should die as a result of fuel poverty. The Government will claim that severe weather payments have been triggered this winter and that substantial sums have been paid. That is true, but payment is a lottery. The requirement for seven consecutive days of sub-zero temperatures is ludicrous. A pensioner or a handicapped child living in any part of the United Kingdom may suffer from six days of severe weather, but if the thaw comes on day seven, there will be no payment. Furthermore, the trigger stations that record temperatures often bear no geographical relationship to the areas for which they are responsible.
Severe weather payments are welcome, but they are an imperfect mechanism for dealing with reality. They should remain in place, but I believe that they should be revised and honed into a better system for dealing with exceptional weather conditions. My Bill does not aim at replacing severe weather payments. Instead, it seeks to ensure that there are automatic and continual payments for 17 weeks between December and March, for which those on basic benefits—such as state pensions, income support, family credit and housing benefit—would be eligible.
Opponents of the Bill will say that that would be far too expensive. However, I ask hon. Members what value we place on the lives of our fellow citizens. I believe that we are denying the value of life if we do not address those problems. It is important to take account of the weather

335
conditions in various parts of the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that weather forecasters now predict not only the temperature but the wind-chill factor, which is more significant in many cases. I speak with some authority, living as I do in Lossiemouth. Anyone who has visited that beautiful part of my constituency knows that the wind-chill factor can be exceptional, even in non-winter months.
My Bill divides the United Kingdom into four specific zones. Zone 4 covers northern Scotland and would require an automatic payment of £11.15 per week. Zone 3 covers central Scotland, Northern Ireland and northern England—which are suffering just as much as the Borders—and produces a payment of £7.40 per week. Zone 2 covers central England and Wales, and would entail an automatic payment of £3.70 per week. Zone 1 covers the remainder of the United Kingdom. It would not produce an automatic payment—but that would not deny the severe weather payment, which is critical during cold snaps.
I shall explain the reason for zoning. In December 1994, after I had made many attempts to pin the Government down on heating cost allowances throughout the UK, the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said in a written reply to me that heating costs varied considerably throughout the United Kingdom. He stated that 23 per cent. extra fuel was required in Glasgow, compared with the southern English comparator, to heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating. In Edinburgh, 28 per cent. extra fuel was required. In Dundee, the figure was 32 per cent.; in Aberdeen it was 41 per cent.; in Lerwick it was 53 per cent.; and in Braemar it was 66 per cent. In terms of zoning, those statistics speak for themselves.
My proposals would present the Exchequer with an annual bill in the region of £700 million. The Scottish proportion would be £170 million—a cost that we have included in the dynamic Scottish National party budget. That sum represents less than 6 per cent. of the £3,000 million that is expected to accrue to the Exchequer from North sea energy resources this year alone.
The proposed payments are based on the service charge for fuel that is included in housing benefit. On a weekly basis, the allowances represent 20 per cent. in central and
336
southern Scotland and 30 per cent. in northern Scotland, including the island communities. The Exchequer could make substantial savings because the national health service would gain if people were unafraid of cold weather. An article in The Independent on Sunday on 14 January clearly stated that
"one third of elderly patients admitted to Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport had reduced the heating in their homes because of fears about the extra costs created by the addition of VAT to gas and electricity bills."
A study conducted in Scotland found that two thirds of elderly people admitted to hospital suffering from hypothermia had heating at home, but did not turn it on. A team of seven senior doctors who undertook research in the west of Scotland estimated that hypothermia results in 4,000 hospital admissions per year. That cost could be eradicated if people felt happy about heating their homes.
The reality is fear—the fear that people cannot heat and eat, that a warm home denies a decent diet, and that people cannot afford a warm home and a decent independent life style. Our fellow citizens should never be subjected to such fears. Phrases such as "social justice" and "care in the community" are more than buzzwords or soundbites—they are commandments.
I greatly appreciate the advice offered by statutory and voluntary organisations to the vulnerable.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Sir James Molyneaux, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Cold Climate Allowance
  COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing accordingly presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased cost of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 March and to be printed. [Bill 56.]
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Rail Privatisation
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.49 pm
  Ms Clare Short: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with grave concern the very serious allegations of fraud against the management team which has been awarded the franchise to operate the London, Tilbury and Southend rail line; is concerned that this fraud was discovered by British Rail staff only days before the franchise was handed over and would not have been subject to British Rail audit thereafter; believes that this development reveals flaws in the franchising system and the effectiveness of the franchise director; calls on the Government to acknowledge that the process of rail privatisation is costing the taxpayer more for a lesser service, has led to a slump in investment, and is undermining through-ticketing and connections between services; and therefore calls on the Government to halt the process of rail privatisation which is driven by dogma rather than the transport needs of the nation.
  It is clear to anyone who has studied the detail of rail privatisation that it is a project driven by right-wing ideology and not by the transport needs of Britain. The Government are willing, at enormous cost to the public purse, to wreak great damage on our rail system and to sell it off for a tiny proportion of its value. The whole process is a madness, driven by dogma and ideological zeal.
  Any serious person considering the future transport needs of Britain knows that the country cannot accommodate the projected increase in car use. We must therefore enhance public transport use, and that means that we must improve the quality and reliability of bus and rail. We must get more passengers and freight on to rail.
  The nation's needs therefore dictate that we must preserve our national rail network, but achieve considerably higher levels of investment than we have had in the past. The privatisation of rail is producing the opposite. It has caused a slump in investment, and thus we have the disgraceful deterioration of the west coast main line, which is close to my heart because it takes me between London and Birmingham. That line serves a major corridor in the country and it is deteriorating greatly.
  Investment in rolling stock has slumped, which means, tragically, that the Asea Brown Boveri carriage works in York will close. That will make hundreds of skilled workers redundant, and there will be further redundancies at ABB in Derby. Jobs will be lost and Britain's manufacturing capacity will be reduced. One hundred trains, worth nearly £500,000, which have already been purchased, are lying idle because the new bureaucracy set up by the Government has not cleared them for use. Of course we agree that proper health and safety standards must apply, but it is madness that new trains cannot be used and that older, less safe trains remain in use. That is another example of the madness of the structures established by the Government.
  On top of those facts, Railtrack's published investment plans for the next 10 years promise less investment than British Rail's previous record, yet we all know that we
  338
  must achieve higher levels of investment. Despite the Government's rhetoric in defence of privatisation on the grounds that it will produce more investment, the reality is that the opposite is the truth.
  Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
  Mr. Roger Gale rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Ms Short: I give way to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).
  Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, although I am afraid I do not intend to be helpful to her. She talks about dogma, but I suggest that what she has been saying about investment is socialist dogma which is not backed up by reason. In my constituency, Stagecoach has just taken over South West Trains. The company is promising considerable investment in services to help commuters and business travellers and to improve the facilities at stations. That follows the total failure of BR to provide any investment in the service these past many years.
  Ms Short: That was just a lot of bluster. The figures that I have quoted are the truth, even if Conservative Members do not like it. The Government always say that privatisation is about more investment, but the fact is that there is a slump in investment at the moment.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Stagecoach's most recent foray into this area was, as my hon. Friends will recall, on the north-west coast line— from which the company subsequently withdrew when it could not make the line pay.
  Ms Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I intend to come to South West Trains later in my speech.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Short: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do intend to give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in a few moments.
  It is clear that this privatisation has been designed by zealots. The privatised service is costing the taxpayer more for a lesser service: £1 billion of taxpayers' money is being spent on the one-off costs of preparing for the privatisation and, according to the Red Book, it is costing taxpayers £850 million a year more in public subsidies to run the same services under the privatised structure.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Short: Certainly not. One would have thought, after yesterday, that the hon. Gentleman would not dare rise from his seat.
  The system that the Government have designed breaks British Rail into 100 separate profit-seeking organisations. The taxpayer is being made to pour £2 billion into the top

  339
  of this system so that it can trickle through, giving a profit to all 100 companies on its way down—profit at the expense of the taxpayer.
  The public have no control over the way their money is spent.
  Mr. Arnold rose—
  Ms Short: This is an outrage. I have made it clear, Madam Speaker, that I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I would be grateful for your protection.
  There are also many questions to be asked about the franchising system for the train operating companies. With the allegations of deliberately organised fraud on a major scale on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, we can see the consequences of scrapping a public service ethos and replacing it with a profit-maximising ethos.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The residents of Southend have suffered from a lack of investment and unreliable trains for all of the 15 years I have represented the constituency. I accept the hon. Lady's point that we must thoroughly root out dishonesty, but will she accept that it would be in the best interests of the people of Southend to sort out the matter and get privatisation going? The privatised company has signed a contract agreeing to bring in new trains in three years' time. That is more than just a pledge. We are going to have more services.
  Instead of engaging in a political battle—understandably perhaps—should we ask ourselves what is best for the travelling public? The fact is that privatisation can provide the cash which British Rail, under Conservative and Labour Governments, has been unable to provide.
  Ms Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for better rolling stock and services on his line. I also agree absolutely that we do not need political arguments: we need a commitment to a better quality railway and to higher investment. We in the Labour party have for a long time advocated leasing rolling stock.
  If the hon. Gentleman has visited rail manufacturing companies, he will know that they are interested in putting lots of private sector investment into our rail network to improve the quality of our rolling stock. That could be done under existing arrangements. Instead, because of dogma and the waste of time and money of this privatisation, all that new rolling stock has not come on stream—which is a tragedy for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and for people in other parts of the country.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the allegations of fraud must be dealt with thoroughly, and that his constituents deserve an end to doubt and an enhanced service; but I think that that would be better achieved in the public sector than in a profit-maximising ethos.
  Inquiries into the allegations continue, and a number of questions will continue to be asked. I am told that there were plans to embark on a similar ticket-selling fraud at Barking. There is the serious question of when the fraud was planned. Did the management team allow for the proceeds of that fraud in presenting its bid for the franchise? All those questions will have to be answered.
  The South West Trains bid was so low that those who work in the service expect staff terms and conditions to be decimated. We shall pay close attention to future
  340
  developments. The high-quality railways that Britain needs require good working conditions for staff so that they feel that they are stakeholders—if I may use that word—take pride in the service that they provide, and help to bring about high standards and productivity.
  When the Secretary of State claimed that the new system would guarantee minimum service levels and control increases in ticket prices, he could have been said to be misleading the public. The contracts being let for franchises provide for the operator to negotiate lower conditions or higher subsidy than those laid down, and the minimum conditions laid down are in turn much lower than those relating to existing services. Moreover, only 50 per cent. of tickets are covered by promises not to allow large price increases. To suggest to the public that their services and tickets will be protected is to mislead them.
  The Government's repeated claim that private operators will run services more cheaply than British Rail is also not completely true. The Secretary of State is comparing figures from bidders with inflated figures allowing for high access charges and a notional profit on top of British Rail's real operating costs. If franchising will result in such great savings, can the Secretary of State explain why taxpayers are putting an extra £850 million a year of subsidy into the system?
  Why has British Rail not been allowed to bid for the franchises? The Bill that became the Railways Act 1993 was defeated in the other place—on that very point—and was then amended in the House of Commons to allow British Rail to bid; yet it has been excluded from all the bids that have been considered so far. Why? It could have provided a benchmark for decent public service standards. Any other bidder would at least have had to provide a better service than British Rail. Its exclusion breaches promises made to Parliament, and demonstrates again that the process is driven by dogma rather than by the search for a quality rail service.
  The Government's proposed sale of Railtrack involves another major scandal. When their rail privatisation Bill went through the House of Commons, the Government repeatedly said that Railtrack would be a public sector company.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I agree with much that the hon. Lady has said, but my party and, I think, the House would like to know the answer to a question. If she believes that Railtrack should be under public control and regulation, how is that to be achieved? It is important for us to know what will be in the prospectus for Railtrack in a few weeks' time. Will the Labour party be making a commitment to that effect?
  Ms Short: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question personally in the last couple of days, but I am coming to his point. I shall be deeply critical of his party's position, for reasons that I have already explained to him.
  The proposed sale of Railtrack is another major scandal. During the passage of the Railways Bill, the Government promised the House over and over again that Railtrack would be a public sector company. Rail privatisation with Railtrack in the public sector and rail privatisation with Railtrack in the private sector are two utterly different propositions. The change of course means that the House passed legislation on one basis but is being given something entirely different. It is totally

  341
  dishonourable for the Government not to seek the permission of the House of Commons for such a major change in policy.
  We know from the survey conducted by Save Our Railways that 20 per cent. of Tory Members of Parliament say in private, when asked, that they do not support rail privatisation. There must be a vote. In honour, it should be arranged by the Government. If they fail, it will be arranged by the Labour party. If Conservative Members vote for what they know is in the national interest, the sale of Railtrack will be stopped. We shall see what they are made of, or whether they say one thing to Save Our Railways, another to their constituents and another in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Railtrack has said that in the first 10 years after privatisation, it intends to spend £1 billion a year on upgrading track, signalling and so on. If, after the general election, we had a Labour Government, would the hon. Lady be able to match that investment or would she leave Railtrack in the private sector?
  Ms Short: Conservative Members seem to read handouts from central office rather than listen to the debate. I have already dealt with that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] So few Conservative Members seem to listen. They are simply here to barrack, which the public do not like.
  I have already dealt with the point that Railtrack's 10-year investment plan promises a lower level of investment than British Rail's record, and we all know that previous levels of investment were too low, so that is nothing for Conservative Members to boast about.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Lady should check her facts.
  Ms Short: I have checked my facts, unlike many Conservative Members.
  Railtrack has been valued at £6.5 billion in modern replacement value for the purposes of setting the costs of access to the track. City experts believe that it will sell for about £1.5 billion. This is a valuable public asset, but it is to be sold off cheaply—£5 billion of taxpayers' investment is to be thrown away.
  The scandal goes on because £1.5 billion worth of debts are to be written off in order to help the sale—another £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money thrown away. Most recently, £80 million owed by Railtrack to the train operating company for its failure to meet its contracts is to be paid not by Railtrack but, to fatten it up for the sale, by the taxpayer—another £80 million of taxpayers' money thrown away on this dogma-driven scheme.
  The net result is that City experts expect Railtrack to sell for about £1.5 billion and to continue to receive £2 billion each year from the taxpayer with no public accountability. That is an outrageous proposition.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What does my hon. Friend think would be the reaction if, for example, a Government decided to purchase assets worth £6.5 billion that were privately held for £1.5 billion? What
  342
  would the newspapers say about such a Government? Would not they say that that was theft, expropriation or robbery? Are not the Government proposing precisely the same thing now for publicly owned assets?
  Ms Short: I agree. This is a disgraceful scandal. It is an ideologically driven project which is throwing away massive public investments and resources in return for a less good rail service. It is an outrage and every Conservative Member should be deeply ashamed.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Short: No, I must get on. I am sorry.
  There is a further scandal which concerns the land and property owned by Railtrack.
  Dr. Spink rose—
  Ms Short: I have made it clear that I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he please resume his seat? I must get on. [Interruption.] I am simply referring the hon. Gentleman to the rules of the House. If I do not wish to give way, he must resume his seat. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.
  Ms Short: I shall press on, if I may.
  There is, I am afraid, beyond the scandals that I have listed, a further scandal. It concerns the land and property owned by Railtrack. I can best summarise the situation by quoting from a couple of newspaper stories. On 14 January, in the business section of The Observer, Anthony Barnet wrote:
  "Property companies are queuing up for a slice of the lucrative development pie expected when Railtrack is privatised in May … On Friday"—
  the Friday before Sunday 14 January—
  "property consultants submitted tenders for the lucrative contracts to manage Railtrack's retail portfolio … One of the property consultants who bid, but refused to be named because of the sensitivity of the deal, said: 'In retailing terms, Railtrack is one of the biggest shopping centre owners in the country. But it has been wasting its potential. It has some plans which will be controversial, but could be immensely profitable'."
  And we thought that this was all about running our railways.
  In The Independent on 20 January, after the regulator had decided that 25 per cent. of the proceeds of windfall profits from property would go to the train operating companies and 75 per cent. would go to Railtrack, Christian Wolmer said:
  "The decision to allow the company to keep the lion's share of a property portfolio that some analysts estimate could be worth £2bn"—
  taxpayers' money—
  "follows a fierce lobbying campaign by Bob Horton, Railtrack's chairman … Sir George Young, the transport secretary, also backed the idea of putting what Railtrack's advisers call a 'property kicker'

  343
  into the sale, so that the company can be marketed as a high-yielding utility with the added spice of potential property development profits."
  There we have it. That is how the Government view valuable land currently owned by the public in the centre of every town and city across the land—added spice to assist the privatisation process.
  Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Short: No, I must get on.
  What is to be done about this terrible scandal? I say to people such as John Humphreys, Christian Wolmar, Keith Harper—journalists whom I like and respect, who think that Labour can wave a magic wand and stop all of this— that the problem is that, as yet, we are still in opposition and do not have the votes to prevent the privatisation unless, as I have made clear, some Tory Members of Parliament have the integrity to vote with us to prevent the sale of Railtrack.
  Those journalists who constantly ask what Labour will do are letting the Government off the hook and asking a question that cannot be answered by a serious political party preparing for government. The Government have not yet said whether they will sell 51 per cent. or 100 per cent. of Railtrack. We do not know the timing of the sale or the price. No serious party can say precisely what it will do in conditions of such uncertainty.
  What the leader of the Liberal Democrats and his spokesperson on transport claim is simply not true. If Labour said that it will buy all the shares in Railtrack, that would not halt the sale. On the contrary, it would mean that there would be no risk in buying Railtrack's shares. They could be sold cheaply, thus wasting taxpayers' money—again—and bought back expensively, wasting further taxpayers' money. Those who think that Labour can somehow stop this flotation by such an open-ended commitment are simply wrong. It is all right for the Liberals, who are not expecting to take power, to make such promises, but it is not all right for the Labour party, which is preparing for power.
  How dare the Secretary of State and Tory Members ask what Labour will do after they have done their best to damage and break up our rail network and waste vast sums of public money? Perhaps the Government are so driven by zealotry that they cannot see the reality. Perhaps a simile might help them to understand what is proposed: the Government and Tory Members are behaving like a bunch of thugs who come marauding into a town and threaten to burn down all the civic buildings before an election and then ask someone such as me, who is standing for election in the town, what I would do, if I won, with all the burnt civic buildings. My answer is that I will do all in my power to stop them burning down the civic buildings now and that, if I fail, unlike the thugs, I will do in all my power to restore and protect the civic treasures. Perhaps Tory Members will now understand what their proposals for our rail network really are.
  Labour's view is that a crucial public service that receives a large annual injection of public money—that fact makes this unlike any previous privatisation—should be publicly owned and publicly accountable. That is why we vehemently oppose privatisation. We believe that we need higher, not lower, levels of rail investment. That is
  344
  why we have for a long time supported the leasing of rolling stock and public-private partnerships to mobilise higher investment levels from the private sector.
  It is because we know that it is morally wrong and deeply destructive that we will try to halt the sale of Railtrack. We ask the public to help us by putting pressure on Tory Members to vote to halt the sale. If that fails, we will make our position clear before the sale so that anyone who contemplates buying shares knows Labour's view. We will set out our view when the time is right but, meanwhile, for the benefit of anyone contemplating buying Railtrack, I will list our concerns.
  First, there must be public accountability and a return to the public in relation to an annual subsidy of £2 billion to a company that may sell for as little as £1.5 billion. Secondly, 100 per cent. of the proceeds from property development should go into rail investment. Thirdly, health and safety cannot be left in the hands of a company driven by commercial considerations.
  Fourthly, we are concerned that track access charges are so high that they make the marginal cost of enhancing rail use prohibitive. We are attracted by the Dutch and Swedish models that direct subsidy into the infrastructure, thus creating profitable train operating companies and allowing rail to compete on an equal basis with roads. Fifthly, we are concerned that the separation of the signalling operation from train operators is inefficient and dangerous and must be reviewed. Sixthly, we are aware that a high-quality rail service requires decent employment conditions for staff. We will oppose savings driven by cuts in pay and conditions.
  Labour will use its powers to legislate and to regulate, and the power of the subsidy to create a nationally integrated, high-investment, high-quality rail network that is better used by passengers and freight than the existing system. No one should doubt our seriousness, but, unlike the Government, we will not spend public money irresponsibly on dogma-driven schemes. So much needs doing in this poor old country of ours and so much spending is needed on reducing unemployment and improving the health and education services, housing and much else, that every penny must be spent wisely.
  I advise anyone who is thinking of investing in Railtrack not to do so because the structures being created by the Government cannot be left in place. With the help of the electorate, Labour will form a better Government and create a better rail system. That is our promise.
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on the progress that it is making with privatisation, particularly with the start of private passenger services on the South West and Great Western lines, offering the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to the taxpayer; recognises that this demonstrates that the Opposition's attempt to halt privatisation has failed; and looks forward to the flotation of Railtrack in May as an opportunity for the railways to access private finance for investment.".
  I welcome this opportunity to set out our plans for a better railway, to report on the progress that we have made towards achieving that and to contrast it with the policy vacuum offered by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Anyone listening to

  345
  her speech and hoping for some glimmer of intelligence on how the Labour party conference resolution on a publicly owned railway would be achieved would have been disappointed. It was an excuse of a speech, offering no clarity from a party that hopes to be elected. It is, I think, the first time in my life that I have been called a right-wing ideologue, a zealot and a thug. I hardly recognise her description.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No. I should like to exit the terminus and gather up a bit of speed before the first signal turns red.
  Our White Paper, published in July 1992, set out a clear coherent programme for revitalising the railways by transferring them to the private sector. The policy has been pursued steadily over the past few years and is now coming to fruition, much to the frustration of the Labour party, which has been running to catch up. The speech by the hon. Member for Ladywood was evidence that Labour has now run out of steam.
  I shall set out the progress that we have made towards achieving that better railway, but first let me deal with what the hon. Lady said about the LTS franchise, comment about which forms the main component of the motion before the House.
  I reported to the House on Monday that, pending investigation of ticket irregularities, the franchising director had decided not to proceed with the transfer of the LTS franchise to Enterprise Rail. Since then, British Rail has sent audit teams to all the stations where the allocation of revenue between London Underground Ltd. and the train operating company could be manipulated to the advantage of the train operating company.
  The checks picked up only one irregularity, involving about 30 tickets and a sum of £250, at Walthamstow Central, where the chief clerk has been suspended from duty. Checks of the newly franchised companies have revealed no irregularities at their stations.
  The House should be in no doubt that we take the allegations seriously. As I said on Monday, financial irregularities, in the public or the private sector, have no place in a modern railway. The incidents are being fully investigated by British Rail and the Rail Regulator, and the franchising director has assured me that until he, the Rail Regulator and British Rail are completely satisfied that the allegations have been fully investigated, there can be no question of the transfer of the LTS franchise going ahead. The franchising director will not take any decision about the future of that franchise until he has had the chance to consider the outcome of the investigations.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood alleged—
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall finish the next paragraph in my speech and then give way.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood alleged that the irregularities would not have been uncovered had the LTS franchise already been transferred to the private sector.
  346
  There is no basis for that assertion. The irregularities were picked up as a result of new audit arrangements put in place for privatisation through the Association of Train Operating Companies.
  After privatisation, ATOC will continue to carry out regular audits of ticketing transactions involving British Rail and the franchise operators. The audit arrangements have worked well and quickly; the irregularities were picked up within weeks. Nevertheless, the Rail Regulator will examine the robustness of the audit and check systems to find out whether any changes are required to improve the detection of fraud and other irregularities.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—and to quell any anxiety on the Conservative Benches, I of course declare an interest, as I am sponsored by the train drivers' union, ASLEF. It is my understanding that the franchise for LTS was awarded on 19 and 20 December. How could that happen if the franchising director had gone through the five stages necessary before a franchise is offered? Had he made the relevant inquiries into the managerial and economic competence of the franchisee, and had he really exercised his powers of diligent examination of the background of the would-be franchisees?
  Sir George Young: Yes, clearly he had, because the franchise was awarded to LTS. The crucial factor is that the audit picked up the irregularities almost at once. I hope that the hon. Lady will await the outcome of the investigations undertaken by ATOC, the Rail Regulator and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising before coming to any premature conclusions.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Sir George Young: I shall give way once more, and then I shall make progress.
  Mr. Wilson: For the benefit of the House and of potential investors in any of the companies, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the incident had occurred after privatisation, it would have been exactly the kind of offence and breach of contractual conditions that would have justified the removal of the franchise there and then?
  Sir George Young: It is, indeed, true that the regulator and OPRAF have a wide range of powers at their disposal, including, in the case of the former, the power to revoke the licence. The point that I want to make at this stage, however, is that the prompt response to the incident by ATOC, British Rail and the Rail Regulator sound a clear warning to everyone in the industry that sharp practices will not be tolerated, but will be uncovered and dealt with.
  I hope that the House will join me in expressing the hope that other public bodies, especially local authorities confronted by worse problems than those that I have mentioned, would respond as promptly.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has just said shows which party is tough on fraud and tough on the causes of fraud?
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, earlier today I read the Appleby report into Lambeth council, which said:
  "In 1993, it seemed there could have been as many as 400 to 500 council officers receiving fraudulent benefits. I could see no justification for Lambeth's failure to take strong action in this matter."
  Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves the House to prejudice and prejudge matters that

  347
  are under investigation and that we should not address the detail of matters until inquiries have been completed and we have the facts before us? Is he aware that column 20 of Hansard of 5 February 1996 shows most clearly that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said that the management team was "corrupt" and added the qualification "if only after I had shouted "Withdraw"?
  Ms Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) raised that matter on a point of order yesterday, and it was dealt with fully by Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) misquoted Hansard. It is out of order to raise the point again in such a misleading way. [Interruption.]
  Mr.Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members must settle down and get on with the debate.
  Sir George Young rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: I will give way in a moment after I have got slightly further down the track.
  Of course I regret that, as a result of what I have just referred to, users of the London-Tilbury-Southend line, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will have to wait a little longer before enjoying the benefits of privatisation, which are already starting to emerge for passengers on the Great Western and South West Trains' lines, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned a moment ago.
  We have combined robust safeguards to protect the benefits that passengers want from the railway with opportunities for franchisees to introduce better services and deals for their passengers. It has always been my view—I suspect that it has been shared by most hon. Members—that people will judge policies not on rhetoric but on performance: on what happens on the railways under the new regime.
  I should like to outline some of the safeguards. For the first time, key fares are to be pegged to inflation for three years and at 1 per cent. below inflation for four years thereafter. In simple terms, I can guarantee that for every journey to every station in the country, there will be at least one regulated fare—a safeguard that passengers have never had before, laying the foundation for a revival in rail travel. Secondly, for the first time, service levels are guaranteed by contractually binding passenger service requirements—a guarantee not provided by British Rail. National through-ticketing schemes and discounts for disabled, elderly and young people are all protected.
  In addition, franchisees are offering additional services above the PSRs, such as improved passenger charters— South West Trains is setting punctuality and reliability targets 2 per cent. higher than at present—improved information for passengers and bus feeder services for local stations. South West Trains introduced such services to Winchester and Liphook the day after it took over the franchise.
  348
  Moreover, the franchisees are demonstrating their enthusiasm for marketing their services through plans for improved facilities for business travellers, special offers for SWT's frequent travellers and £1 travel days for senior citizens.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Sir George Young: As I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to welcome that, I shall give way.
  Mr. Banks: Which other country in Europe is pursuing such a model of rail privatisation? If it is so wonderful, why is everyone not leaping in to embrace it?
  Sir George Young: Five or six European countries have done the same as us and have separated the provision of infrastructure from the provision of services—a policy recommended in one of the European Commission's directives.
  Mr. Banks: Which countries?
  Sir George Young: It is important to separate the provision of infrastructure from the provision of services.
  Mr. Banks: Answer the question.
  Sir George Young: That is the answer that I give to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point in asking the Minister a question if he is not allowed to answer it.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful for your protection from one of the more boisterous Chelsea fans, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for the strong and determined action that the Secretary of State has taken on LTS. He knows that the long-suffering passengers of Southend have had many problems for many years. Will the matter be resolved soon? Will it be a matter of days, weeks or months?
  Sir George Young: I said on Monday that the inquiry will not be rushed, as it is important that it is full and complete. We must, however, complete it as soon as is reasonably practicable, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept in the picture.
  I say to my hon. Friends whose constituency lines have not yet been franchised and who, no doubt, want to get the benefits that are emerging that the Government want to see those benefits extended promptly to other parts of the country.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to investment. I have been particularly impressed by the willingness of the franchisees to invest in the future of the railways. Great Western Trains plans to refurbish and modernise its rolling stock ahead of current plans to enable it to provide additional and flexible services, while South West Trains is embarking on a £3 million programme of improvements to stations and passenger facilities such as security, lighting, waiting rooms and information services. That is

  349
  clear evidence of a long-term commitment to the railway by those who won the franchises, and that sense of commitment will drive forward the improvements in the railway that all hon. Members want to see.
  A few months ago, the hon. Lady was trying to pretend that privatisation would not happen. Her plan was to stop privatisation, but it has failed. The first franchisees are operating, and nine franchises have either been awarded or are on the market. These alone comprise more than 50 per cent. of the existing railway by revenue.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall make some progress, if the hon. Lady will allow me.
  Pre-qualification has started for a further two franchises—South West and Wales, and the Cardiff Railway. The franchising director is making excellent progress. There is great market interest and serious bidders are coming forward with serious bids. Rolling stock companies, heavy maintenance depots, seven design offices, British Rail Telecommunications, on-board catering and a range of smaller businesses have all passed into the private sector. We have invited bids for 13 British Rail infrastructure support businesses, and I look forward to announcing the first sales very soon.
  In all, more than 30 businesses have been sold or franchised, bringing proceeds of more than £2 billion. More than half the former British Rail by turnover has either been sold or is on the market. I am pleased that there is no evidence that bidders have been deterred by the attitude and the empty threats of the Labour party.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that in 1993 the House was promised that British Rail would be allowed to bid for franchises? Why has British Rail been excluded? Is it not an example of the Government saying one thing and doing another?
  Sir George Young: That is not the position. The matter is clearly set out in the legislation. The duties of the franchising director, Roger Salmon, are clearly set out, and there are certain conditions under which he can allow British Rail to bid. Those conditions have not so far been met. As the franchising director has been satisfied by the level of interest shown by the market as a whole, it has not been necessary to allow British Rail to bid. He is keeping the position under review.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: I will, out of respect for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell: On infrastructure—this is not a frivolous question—it may be within the recollection of those at the Department that, because of bad fencing, some cattle strayed on to the Edinburgh to Glasgow line near Polmont, causing a very bad accident in which fatalities occurred. One gathers that the responsibility for fencing and protection against cattle and other animals straying on
  350
  to the line is far from clear. Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of infrastructure—I do not expect an answer from off the top of his head—will he undertake that the Department will at least look at the matter because, as far as the Edinburgh to Glasgow line is concerned, it is serious?
  Sir George Young: Of course no one wants cattle on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line. Normally, it would be Railtrack's responsibility permanently to safeguard the infrastructure. I will make some inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  We have announced that Railtrack will be floated on the stock exchange in May. I firmly believe that its privatisation offers the best future for Railtrack, for passengers and for freight.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: No. I want to make some progress.
  Privatisation will allow greater use of private sector skills in managing the network and will provide greater scope for private capital to be invested in improving the network. Railtrack recently published the first long-term plan for managing the rail network, detailing its intention to spend more than £1 billion a year over the next decade. That is a substantial sum and good news for all rail users.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Sir George Young: No. I want to make some progress and deal with the hon. Member for Lady wood's argument that we have no mandate for the sale of Railtrack.
  On the contrary, the sale of Railtrack was clearly foreseen when the White Paper was published three and a half years ago. We said then:
  "In the longer term the Government would like to see the private sector owning as much as possible of the railway. Powers will therefore be taken to allow the future privatisation of all BR track and operations."
  All the necessary powers were taken in the Railways Act 1993 and the Government made it clear at the time that the powers would be used in due course to privatise Railtrack. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) said:
  "ultimately we wish to see Railtrack move into the private sector".— [Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 43.]
  My noble Friend the Earl of Caithness said:
  "Railtrack's existence as a Government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 354.]
  Ms Short: I have here sheaves of quotations in which Ministers say the opposite. In Committee, the junior Minister, in exasperation, said:
  "We have been round the issue several times. Railtrack will be in the public sector for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1993; c. 400.]
  Sir George Young: I have made it clear that the Government also explained that Railtrack would move

  351
  into the private sector. I have given three quotations in which it was made clear that that was our ambition. That is the goal that we want to secure.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood claimed that privatisation was a bad deal for the taxpayer. The early signs are that privatisation will be better value for money. Let me quote the figures. British Rail was budgeted to receive £83.4 million in 1995–96 to operate South West Trains' services. Stagecoach will receive, on average over the seven years of the franchise, £49 million per annum— an average saving of £34.4 million per annum. British Rail was budgeted to receive £61.7 million in 1995–96 for running Great Western Trains' services. Great Western Holdings will receive an average of £44.8 million—an average saving of £17 million per annum. Those are substantial figures on two franchises which, if replicated across the network, will significantly reduce the grant required by the railway. On top of those savings come the proceeds from the sales of other BR businesses, which already amount to more than £2 billion before Railtrack is sold.
  The picture that I have painted of our policies and plans for the railway represents a promising vision for the future.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: I want to make some progress. It is a short debate and it is clear that many other hon. Members want to speak.
  Our vision is increasingly being shared by others—by bidders for franchises and for other parts of the railway, by commentators and, I hope, by passengers, especially those whose services are now being provided by private operators.
  What about the Labour party? It has said that it will not buy back the rolling stock that we sold before Christmas. It has said that it will not break the franchise contracts, which run from seven to 10 years. As we have just heard, there is no commitment to buy back Railtrack. When the hon. Member for Ladywood and I first debated the railways together in October she asked whether someone as intelligent as me could possibly support the Government's policy. It now looks as though someone as intelligent as herself is doing exactly that. We are left with the conclusion that Labour is in favour of privatisation, but it cannot say so for fear of its trade union paymasters.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir George Young: No. The end of the track is in sight.
  As the flotation of Railtrack is drawing ever closer, the Labour party is sitting on its hands, refusing to say whether it is sticking to its commitment to buy back the railways. However, the hon. Lady made her views on buying shares in Railtrack very clear on Sunday. Speaking without restraint, she said that it would be immoral for people to buy shares in Railtrack. What does her comment about immorality mean for the millions of people who are shareholders in other companies that used to be nationalised industries—for the stakeholders in British Telecom, British Airways or the BAA? Is she accusing them of immorality for buying a stake in a former nationalised industry?
  352
  What do her remarks tell us about the RMT, which has a large shareholding in Thames Water? What about the Labour Members who are sponsored by RMT and other unions, such as the GMB, which have shares in privatised companies? Is she claiming that they are all living off immoral earnings?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No.
  There are many questions to be asked of the Opposition. I will ask just a few. Given their commitments to public ownership, how would they pay to buy back the railways? Would it be through higher fares, higher taxes or higher borrowing? Can they match our guarantee on fares? If they cannot, passengers will know that their fares will not be safe under Labour. Could they match our guarantees on services? Can they give a commitment, as we have done, that the Rail Regulator will continue to reduce access charges by 2 per cent. per annum in real terms?
  At 7 o'clock, the House must decide which strategy for the railways is the right one: Labour's muddled policy, which is uncosted and unconvincing; or our strategy, which is clear, confident, forward-looking and determined to roll back decades of decline under the dead hand of state ownership and usher in a new era for the railways. I have no doubt how the House will decide.
  4.40 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: In the vote at 7 o'clock, the House should consider carefully the national opinion poll that was conducted on this single issue last year which showed that 69 per cent. of people are totally opposed to rail privatisation. An even more interesting statistic is that one in five Conservative voters—of those who were open and honest about the fact that that is how they voted in the general election in 1992—will reconsider casting their votes for the Conservative party on that issue alone. Conservative Members with comparatively small majorities should consider seriously the deep opposition, which has always existed and continues, to this benighted policy.
  The late, much lamented Robert Adley called the Government's proposals the poll tax on wheels. We can compare the cost to the taxpayer of this privatisation with the cost of that other benighted legislation. It has been estimated that the poll tax cost taxpayers more than £4 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) succinctly described the costs to the British taxpayer of the Government's policy, which attempts not to give the travelling public a better service but to destroy an integrated rail network system. Of the £1 billion that has been already spent, not one penny piece has gone into improving the track, buying new rolling stock, manning stations or improving signalling equipment.
  After the first full year of franchising, the taxpayer will have had to fork out an additional £1.8 billion, the equivalent of lp off the basic rate of tax. If we divide that by the number of taxpayers, that is an additional £72 per taxpayer. Regionally—I must admit a preferential interest as I represent a seat in the south-east of England—every taxpayer in the south-east will have to pay an additional £93.

  353
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood spoke of the amount that Railtrack would be worth if we had to replace it today, which is £6.5 billion. The Government have said that they will sell it for £1.5 billion. That is another £5 billion; we are now up to £7.8 billion.
  Sir George Young: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: If I may first finish my mathematics. That means that rail privatisation has already exceeded the cost to the taxpayer of the poll tax.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady has stated a figure of £1.5 billion and said that the Government had volunteered that figure. What is her reference?
  Ms Jackson: Could the Secretary of State repeat his question; I did not hear it.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady attributed a figure in relation to proceeds from the privatisation of Railtrack to Ministers. I should be interested to know the reference.
  Ms Jackson: I apologise to the Secretary of State; it was a slip of the tongue. The figure came from City experts. However, as we know, City experts and Ministers work so closely together on so many occasions that it is sometimes difficult to separate them and decide who has made a decision.
  Mr. Tony Banks: City experts are more honest than Ministers.
  Ms Jackson: Certainly.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: Let me finish my point.
  If one examines how much we, as taxpayers, have paid to the City experts whom the Department of Transport has employed over the years to help it bring about privatisation—which, as Labour Members know, means the destruction of our railway system—it is, according to the Government's figures, more than £12 million. I think therefore that I could be allowed a little leeway in sometimes confusing the grey suits.
  Dr. Spink: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. She seemed to say that my constituents are against privatisation. Is she aware that my constituents are served by the LTS line, which, along with British Rail, has failed my constituents during the past 15 years, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) earlier? Does she accept that my constituents wanted some change to take place, and that doing nothing was simply not an answer for them? Will she tell me what she suggests should be done instead of privatisation? Where would she find the investment to pay for the necessary changes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My comment does not relate directly only to the hon. Gentleman, but long interventions do not help in short debates.
  Ms Jackson: I have every sympathy for the constituents of the hon. Member for Castle Point
  354
  (Dr. Spink)—I know that they have been forced to travel on the "misery" line. However, I should point out to him that it is his party and his Government who have failed, during the past 16 years, to find the necessary investment to improve that line. Far from doing nothing— [Interruption.] Allow me to answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  Far from doing nothing, the hon. Gentleman's Government have wilfully wasted his constituents' taxes, not only by not investing in the line, not finding new rolling stock and not improving signalling, but by attempting to destroy the line. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood had said, he would know what we would do to provide a railway system for this country that is fit not only for the people who travel on it now but for the 21st century.
  The Secretary of State referred to Great Western Trains, which was one of the first two franchises, and spoke of the improved rolling stock that it is committed to introducing on its line. The two franchises that have managed to deliver a service have received quite a lot of coverage, and it seemed that one of the ways in which Great Western improved its rolling stock was to paint a new colour down the side of a comparatively old train. As we know, the first services that South West Trains and Great Western Trains provided were not by trains but buses.
  I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a written answer from his Department which states that, out of the franchised companies, Great Western Trains has the most speed restrictions imposed on it because of a failure to invest in maintaining the track on which it is attempting to run its services. Sixteen speed restrictions are being imposed on lengths of track that vary from 200 yd to two to three miles. The Secretary of State may speak about the franchise operators' additional investment and improvement of services to the travelling public. If that investment is a pot of paint—as opposed to the necessary millions of pounds to maintain track so that trains may run at speed and passengers arrive at their destination at times that they find acceptable—the right hon. Gentleman is being extremely ingenuous.
  I find it very surprising that the Government are holding the commitments made in the contracts between the franchising director and the franchisees so close to their chest, but I understand that, as no additional money has been put into our railway system by the franchise operators, it would be possible for a franchisee to meet the franchising director at the end of the first year of attempting to run services and say, "I am sorry, but I cannot run services for the amount of subsidy that you give me. Would it be possible for me to examine fare structures not once a year, as is the case at the moment, but three times a year?"
  That shows that when the Government claim, as they have done, that they have given guarantees to the travelling public about services and about the freezing of fares, they say one thing and do unto others something quite other.
  The Government's protestations that fares would be frozen gave the travelling public and all the people of the country to believe that that meant that all fares would be frozen. Closer examination shows that fewer than half of fares—47 per cent.—will be frozen, and I understand that,

  355
  on InterCity, only 21 per cent will be. We were also told that fares would not increase by more than the rate of inflation. The Government did not choose to freeze fares at the inflation rate of January 1996—the month when fares always increase—but of June 1995, when inflation was infinitely greater than it was in January. There, yet again, the travelling public and the people of the country have been deceived about what the Government intend when they speak about presenting progressively wider and better services for the people of Britain.
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Does her brief from ASLEF tell the hon. Lady how long it takes for all the fare manuals to be revised? Will she suggest how fast they might have been revised, and consequently her opinion on the latest month for which an automatic retail prices index figure could be used to base the fares limitation from January?
  Ms Jackson: Regrettably, I am not briefed by ASLEF so I cannot answer the Minister's question, but I can tell him that the fares that I mentioned in the main came from his Department. If he wishes me to obtain a brief for him from ASLEF, I will be happy to advise because, if we need expertise in running railways, I have a strong suspicion that there is greater work experience among the members of ASLEF than there is among the Ministers facing me.
  I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak and I notice that I have spoken for a comparatively long time. I end where I began, by urging Conservative Members to take the opportunity—positively rare in their parliamentary lives—to place the interests of their constituents first. The Government's plans for privatisations will lead only to progressively greater hardship for the people of the country, who desperately wish to use their trains for environmental reasons alone. People are desperate to be able to get out of private transport because of the damage that they know that it does to themselves, their children and their communities. They would dearly love to be able to make additional journeys on a properly integrated public transport system.
  I urge Conservative Members to acknowledge that a properly integrated public transport system can never be visited on the country while a Conservative Government are in office, and that the present Government's plans to privatise the railways are a disaster. They should exercise their responsibilities to their constituents and vote with Labour Members in the Lobby tonight.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). When she speaks on transport matters, she is always careful to acknowledge that she is sponsored by ASLEF, and she did so earlier. It might be to the benefit of the House if I read out from the entry in the Register of Members' Interests the extent of that sponsorship. On page 72 of the current Register, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate says that she is
  "Sponsored as a parliamentary candidate by ASLEF, who pay 80 per cent. of general election expenses and in the year 1994–95 gave £5,500 to Hampstead and Highgate Labour Party for its constituency work."
  It is obvious from the speeches by Labour Members that there is two-tier opposition. I challenge the hon. Lady to consider the following: is she speaking in the debate
  356
  today for the people whom she represents, or is she taking one step to the left and speaking for the union that sponsors her? In order to make the position absolutely clear, I challenge her to resign her sponsorship from ASLEF so that when she speaks in the House and in the community she can say—without fear of contradiction from someone such as me—that she speaks out of philosophical conviction, not because she is sponsored by a trade union.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I have not yet finished my attack. The hon. Lady is an interesting character in many ways and I have enjoyed her past experiences enormously. However, as one of the more extreme left-wing Members in this place, she must make her position clear. I shall give way on that point.
  Ms Jackson: I point out to the House and to the nation at large that the hon. Gentleman has never been part of my past experiences, and he certainly will not be part of my future experiences. My constituents have a particular interest in the future of our railways. Three of the main railway termini—King's Cross, Euston and St. Pancras— are situated just to the south of my constituency and the lines that those termini serve run at the bottom of my constituents' gardens. Therefore, the future of the railways is of particular interest to them.
  Mr. Dunn: When I said that I enjoyed the hon. Lady's past experiences, I meant that I watched her films when I was very young. The Labour party has a major problem.
  Ms Jackson rose—
  Mr. Dunn: It was not a silent film in which I first saw her.
  Ms Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman was very young, he would not have seen any of my films because they were not allowed to be shown to people under the age of 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very interesting, but we should get down to a serious debate on the motion before the House.
  Mr. Dunn: It is not true that the first films that I saw were silent. More than 200 Labour Members of Parliament are sponsored by trade unions. That is the way in which the Labour party has evolved and I have no quarrel with that. However, when I speak on behalf of my constituents, I speak for them—I am not sponsored, controlled or got at, and unions are not represented on my association executive council as is the case with Labour Members.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: No, I will not give way again; I resent being interrupted when I make a point that Labour Members do not like. Two hundred Labour Members of Parliament are sponsored by trade unions, and we know the result of that. The hon. Lady did not answer my

  357
  question as to whether she will resign her sponsorship. I dare say that she will write to me with an answer when she has one.
  We listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). I am not certain—and my constituents need to know—whether a Labour Government would renationalise the railway system. If the Labour party were to renationalise the railway system, what levels of compensation would be paid to shareholders of Railtrack? How would passenger services be brought back under state control, bearing in mind the legal obligations that have been entered into recently and those that will be entered into in the future?
  How would the Labour party fulfil its commitment to encourage more passengers and freight on to the railways? Finally, would the hon. Member for Ladywood—who is not in the Chamber—commit her party to greater investment in the railways? If so, to what extent?
  It is quite clear that the Government have a good record of support for our national rail system. Since nationalisation, £54 billion has been invested in the railways. Every Conservative Government since the war have increased investment in the railways. Since 1979, this Conservative Government have demonstrated their overwhelming commitment to the railways by investing more than £15 billion in British Rail, including £6.5 billion in the past five years.
  Since 1979, £4 billion has been invested in new rolling stock. There has been massive investment in the Dartford loop line in recent years, leading to modern new rolling stock for the people of Dartford. The number of complaints that I receive about the quality of service on the Dartford loop line has fallen to almost none.
  I expected to hear something about where Labour stands on rail privatisation. The truth is that Labour opposes rail privatisation, just as it opposed that of British Telecom; the water, gas and electricity boards; British Airways and so on. Nationalisation has been a disaster since it first came into being in the late 1940s under the Attlee Government. What is Labour's policy now? I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will make it clear—in the way that the hon. Member for Ladywood did not—that Labour will renationalise the rail system. He owes that declaration to the intellectual honesty that I have always associated with the Labour party in the past.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Come on.
  Mr. Dunn: There is no intellectual honesty to be found in the Labour party, according to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—the former chairman of the Greater London council. We know where that hon. Gentleman is coming from. What is more, we know where he is going—back to that side of the House.
  Labour must decide for the sake of its own soul whether it speaks for the people or for the trade unions that sponsor Labour and control its local parties. I know the answer, and so do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I look forward to rail privatisation. It will mean accountability, efficiency, investment and a far better service. Then we might see an improvement in the number of rail passengers. I have no doubt how I will vote tonight. I shall vote in the Lobby with the Government.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I probably have full agreement that the motion and the debate so far emphasise how far removed the rail privatisation process has become from serving the national and public interest—hon. Members have no doubt enjoyed themselves immensely over the past hour or so. I will make a few points briefly, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute.
  I remind the House of the recent scandal of the misuse of ticket revenue on the LTS line, the disposal of rail assets at a fraction of their value, creating large profits for the purchasers at the taxpayer's expense, and the lack of regulation to ensure investment to modernise our rail system and achieve growth in passenger and freight loadings, which should be the key objectives of the rail system. The argument surrounding the fraudulent misuse of LTS ticket income is another illustration of the flaws in the privatisation process.
  An integrated public transport system has been a vital component in the success of our capital city in every respect—commerce, tourism and culture. The interchangeability of public transport was a key factor in that success, made possible by the successful travelcard scheme. Under the umbrella of public ownership, there was no problem or concern about operators diverting income to maximise their profits. The formula for distributing travelcard income was based on passenger surveys. It was a tried and trusted system. The events of recent weeks on the LTS line have destroyed the trust of operators in what until now has been a well-proven system. Rail, underground and bus operators have been unnerved by those events. Without an effective ticket interchangeability system, there could be chaos at ticket offices at all purchase points. There could be bitter in-fighting between operators to attract passengers. London's integrated public transport system, in which we should be able to continue to take great pride, is threatened with collapse.
  I was saddened to hear in the House today arguments about whether the LTS irregularities were discovered by auditors at some stage. The key issue is that trust in a system that has been working extremely well has been undermined.
  Sir Donald Thompson (Calderdale): The hon. Gentleman must have travelled by air from airports such as Heathrow, and swapped tickets and destinations between British Midland, British Airways, Air France and other airlines with no trouble. That is private enterprise at its best. The same facilities will continue on the railways, and must continue.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am a veteran air traveller, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that the frequency of air travel is nothing compared with that of public transport in a city such as London. If one were to introduce the same systems in the capital, there would be chaos.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Calderdale (Sir D. Thompson) scored such a good own goal that I cannot miss the opportunity to point out that different airlines might be involved in a multi-part journey, each part of which is separately priced at the full rate. One can get discounted through air tickets, which one certainly cannot get on the railways now.
  Mr. Chidgey: That is a good example of why we should call into question the Government's obsessive criticism of the so-called inefficiency and non-competitiveness of the public sector—which, from what we heard today, has a hollow ring.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said that he regularly travels by air. Has he ever been on a flight that departed or arrived at its destination at the scheduled time? If British Rail or any rail service was so inefficient in its punctuality, there would be riots. Hon. Members know that that is true.
  Mr. Chidgey: My experience of air travel is wide and varied. In some cases, it has been more a question of which day the aircraft would arrive. I hope that we never find ourselves in that situation with rail.
  We should be striving for an effectively regulated, well-funded and well-managed public and private partnership, capable of delivering an efficient and responsive rail service. A case in point is the rail company that reported its
  "best-ever overall performance levels and ended the year with not a single route triggering season ticket discounts … The 92 per cent. target set by the government for punctuality of services overall was met … These improvements in operations were matched by a continuing rise in customer satisfaction, measured by independent research."
  The rail company's overall service levels were raised by the introduction of new trains, which
  "were ordered following a successful bid for £150 million leasing finance".
  Another £84 million was invested in resignalling and overall efficiency gains exceeded 10 per cent. The company
  "increased its operating profit … from £5 million to £71 million"
  in one year.
  Mr. Dunn: Where is it?
  Mr. Chidgey: Indeed, where is it? That company's operating profit reached £71 million and it received no grant, and it reinvested £432 million. That company was not an Asian tiger but British Rail's Network SouthEast in 1993–94—its last year of operation. That report shows the benefits that can be achieved by managers given the freedom to use their talents, as they did under the organising-for-quality system. I hope that the Minister, in his response tonight, will give us some comfort.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chidgey: I am sorry, but I must make progress.
  I hope that the Minister will allow British Rail managers the opportunity to bid for some of those franchises. The managers have shown what they can do and they should have that opportunity.
  I now come to the subject of the privatisation of Railtrack. We must have a nationally planned, nationally controlled, integrated rail network. That is essential to the community and to our economy. The Government, as we have heard today, now plan to sell off assets worth at least £6 billion, with an 8 per cent. rate of return, for a fraction
  360
  of their value. To make the deal even more juicy, the Government are currently allowing Railtrack to accumulate the revenue from track access charges.
  What is happening to the money collected from track access charges? At present, I understand that the money is being held under the heading "Asset Maintenance Plan". In the six months to March 1995, the total amassed in track access charges was some £483 million, and £253 million in the six months to September 1995. That revenue was retained on the balance sheet. It gives the appearance of very healthy revenue, but it also disguises the impoverished state of Railtrack's assets. Why is Railtrack refusing to spend that money, when the organisation knows that it needs to be spent urgently on the maintenance and renewal of the rail network? Why are the Government allowing Railtrack to charge for track access when it continues to allow the rail network to fall into disrepair? Is that yet another example of creative accounting on the real costs of privatisation to the taxpayer?
  Last year, we saw the Government's willingness to sell off the rolling stock companies for a minimum return. It is astounding that such an important component of the rail service could be sold for such a knock-down price. Rolling stock valued at some £3 billion was sold for about £1.8 billion. It is scandalous that the new companies are under no obligation to purchase new rolling stock. They have merely to maintain existing stock, while they are guaranteed an annual rate of return of approximately £700 million a year. That is not bad on a £1.8 billion investment. Predatory companies have been given an opportunity to run down the rolling stock, maximise their profits and, at the end of the contracts, hand back a derelict railway.
  Government subsidies are clearly being used to induce private sector companies to take the opportunity to operate rail companies under franchise. Stagecoach, as we have heard, will receive a subsidy of some £53 million a year to operate South West Trains. I have been told that when British Rail last ran that sector of the rail network, it made a profit of £15 million and required no passenger service obligation subsidy. Why does Stagecoach need a subsidy? Because it must pay the hugely inflated rail access charges.
  Mr. Watts: British Rail last ran those services for the year up to Saturday night, and it received a subsidy of £83 million a year.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am referring to the time before the South West Trains region was set up. In any case, the subsidy was being paid so that British Rail could pay the track access charges.
  In spite of improvements and investment by British Rail, South West Trains has done nothing to improve the railway. Too many elderly coaches trundle up and down the region. They are fitted with the notorious slam doors, which have an appalling passenger safety record. That point strikes home for me because, for several years, a door-lock system has been available which was developed in the railway works in my constituency. The system has been tested and found to work, but South West Trains has placed no orders and Stagecoach has given no commitment to make those trains safer.
  If the confusion and disarray that have been caused to rail operations was not enough, the chaos that has been caused by through ticketing is inexcusable. Hon. Members

  361
  will be aware of the report by the Consumers Association that discovered that 90 per cent. of ticket inquiries resulted in incorrect information about the cheapest tickets available, despite the regulator's insistence that information on the cheapest fares for a journey should be available from all ticket offices. The train operating companies, on average, over-priced tickets by £24, which is scandalous. In many cases, the charges quoted were double the cheapest fare.
  We have heard today some glowing accounts of the first week of operation of the new franchises for Great Western Trains and South West Trains. Let us return to reality. Passengers who used to travel into London on one line and wished to travel home on another could do so on one return ticket. Now, if the lines are run by separate companies, passengers can travel to Paddington on one line, but they cannot use a return ticket to travel out of Waterloo later on the same day. They have to buy separate tickets. That is not only ridiculous, but bizarre.
  I had a call to my office late yesterday afternoon from a young lady called Sally Lloyd-Jacob, who has allowed me to use her name today. She travels every day from Sutton to Horsham on a line now run by South Central Trains. She catches the 8.25 from Sutton, which arrives in Horsham at 9.10. That is a 45-minute journey, but yesterday it took five hours. Why? The brakes had caught fire. That tells us much about the level of maintenance we may now expect. However, the five-hour delay was not due to lack of repairs or maintenance. There was another train immediately behind to which the passengers could easily have transferred. However, the train behind was not owned by South Central Trains; it was owned by South West Trains. The five-hour delay was caused while the two companies haggled over the price that would be paid for the transfer of passengers from one train to the other. Passengers, possibly including the elderly and children, were left freezing while rival companies argued over profit. That is a measure of the new train service that the Government have given us.
  We need a commitment to return to the sensible operation and development of our railways in the national interest. The Liberal Democrats are pledged to reacquire a controlling interest in Railtrack, to create a national rail system that is responsive to national, integrated transport planning, with a private and public partnership. I must tell Opposition Members, who often sing from the same song sheet as I do, that it is not acceptable to hide behind the internal rules of share transfer in the stock exchange. Those rules apply to companies trading with each other, not to Governments. There should be a commitment in the Railtrack prospectus to exchange 51 per cent. of Railtrack shares for Government bonds, at the issue or market price—whichever is the lower—using primary legislation if necessary. Labour's position is untenable. Leading City analysts claim that the Railtrack sell-off would collapse tomorrow if Labour made a commitment to reacquire 51 per cent.
  The Liberal Democrats have pledged to establish a national rail authority to regulate properly, with a partnership between the public and private sectors. We would renegotiate the franchises to recognise the long-term investment needs of railways, and the operators of the new companies would welcome that. They know how ridiculous the franchises are. We would set targets
  362
  for increased passenger and freight loadings, instead of maximising profits at the taxpayer's expense, which is what the Government have done. We shall vote in favour of the motion tonight, because we believe that the Government's wholesale destruction of our integrated national rail system must be opposed and must be reversed.
  The Labour party has been found wanting. It must now show some resolve, commitment and leadership, if it is to be taken seriously on rail privatisation in the House and in the country.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on his apparent promotion to the Front Bench. That has happened so often before and he has returned to the Back Benches. Let us hope that this time his promotion is permanent, but only to the Opposition Front Bench.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) did not welcome rail privatisation. I must congratulate the councillors on Liberal Democrat-controlled Isle of Wight council. They have welcomed the fact that their rail service is to be one of the first put out to franchise—but as we know, Liberal Democrats say different things to different audiences.
  Mr. Chidgey: I hope that I have made it clear—I may have been speaking rather fast to save time—that we are not against privatisation: we are against the way in which it is being handled by the Government, which is appalling. We want a partnership between the private and public sectors to run the railways of this country.
  Mr. Riddick: This has been an extremely useful exchange. The Liberal Democrats have now said on the record that they are in favour of privatisation. That is to be welcomed. I am not quite sure, however, how Liberal Democrat researchers will be able to respond to the apparently contradictory approaches to privatisation in their party.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I rather doubt whether my hon. Friend will be able to shed any light on this—I am certainly confused. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) seemed to be urging the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is temporarily occupying the Labour Front Bench, to renationalise Railtrack. There seems to be total confusion; there has certainly been a volte-face in the space of three minutes.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Eastleigh would like to reply to it—
  Mr. Chidgey: I am delighted to do so. I do not want to turn this debate into a seminar on our policies, but I should be delighted to send hon. Members copies of our transport policy, in which all will be revealed. We have made it clear that Railtrack should stay in public control, through a 51 per cent. shareholding. We have also made it perfectly clear that we encourage the acquisition of

  363
  private finance in the running of our railways. We simply want it done more effectively than the Government have managed.
  Mr. Riddick: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his contributions; they will be most helpful to both main parties.
  I want to talk first about the general principle of privatising the railways, and secondly about one narrow aspect of the railways—that is, charter train operation.
  At this stage of a privatisation it is always more difficult to set out the benefits that will accrue, because those benefits have not yet become apparent—there has not been enough time for them to show up. It is easy for the Opposition to criticise and to forecast the demise of the industry, just as they have done with every other privatisation. They have said that prices will rise and services will decline. It was outrageous of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) to say that a private company cannot be trusted to ensure high safety standards.
  Dr. Spink: What about British Airways?
  Mr. Riddick: That indeed is the obvious riposte. Many of the world's major airlines are privately owned companies with excellent safety records. It is a disgrace that the hon. Member for Ladywood should be putting around those scare stories when they are clearly not accurate.
  We need only look at other privatisations to find out what really happens. The Labour party is increasingly desperate and occasionally disingenuous when it makes its attacks on privatisation. There was a classic example of that over the new year. During the cold spell, hundreds of water mains cracked in various parts of the country. Up in the north-east, about 150,000 homes were cut off for a short time as a result of those problems. A local Labour Member of Parliament, I think the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), went on television to say that it was all the fault of privatisation. Yet at the same time 100,000 homes in Northern Ireland were cut off for the same reason, and as far as I know the water industry there is not privatised.
  Up in Strathclyde, where the water industry is still in public hands, 500,000 homes were cut off. That shows how Labour sometimes resorts to desperate claims.
  Mr. Dalyell: Five hundred thousand homes cannot possibly have been cut off in Strathclyde—this is drivel.
  Mr. Riddick: I got the figure from The Daily Telegraph, which is certainly more accurate than most in its reporting. I can show the hon. Gentleman the cutting if he wants to see it.
  If the Labour party really believes that privatisation will be so disastrous, why do not Opposition Members commit themselves to renationalising Railtrack? Why not commit themselves to reversing the process? Of course, the reason is that they know that privatisation has transformed the economy for the better. Long-distance coaches, British Airways, the British Airports Authority, road haulage and British Gas—those have all been transformed; prices have come down and customer services have improved.
  364
  Commercial disciplines and incentives have forced the managements of those companies to provide customers with what they actually want.
  When British Airways was being privatised back in 1979, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), leading for the Opposition, said that the company would become the "pantomime horse of capitalism". As we know, British Airways is now one of the most successful airlines in the world.
  I believe that privatisation will have the same beneficial effect on the railways as it has had on many other industries. The new rail franchises will give new entrepreneurs and new companies the opportunity to come into the rail market. Besides bringing innovative ideas with them, those companies will want to introduce new and different services and to try new pricing arrangements that will benefit the travelling public. It is in their interests to attract more passengers to the railways—that is the point.
  The purpose of privatisation, in short, is to halt and reverse the decline in railway use. Since 1948, £54 billion of taxpayers' money has been invested in the railways, but the railways' share of journeys has fallen from 17 per cent. in 1953 to just 5 per cent. now. It is time that we tried to reverse the process.
  My local electricity company is an example of what can be achieved under privatisation. Prices have fallen by 19 per cent. since the company was privatised. They were reduced by 3.5 per cent. last April and will be reduced again by a similar amount this coming April. The customers of Yorkshire Electricity have also benefited from a £50 bonus resulting from the flotation of the National Grid. That, too, benefited customers.
  British Telecom is another example of privatisation benefiting customers. Inland call charges have been cut by 21.4 per cent. since 1984—a 53 per cent. reduction in real terms in telephone call prices since the company was privatised. That is of major benefit to everyone. There has been an explosion in the number of public pay phones. At the time of privatisation there were 77,000; there are now 130,000. When British Telecom was privatised, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said:
  "The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction".—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman now returned to the subject of the privatisation of the railways.
  Mr. Riddick: I think that the point I was making is extremely relevant—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has decided that it is not.
  Mr. Riddick: I contend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is—but I entirely accept your ruling. I believe that the benefits of privatisation will feed through to rail customers, as they have fed through to electricity and gas consumers.
  Exactly a year ago, I made a speech on a similar motion. I congratulate the Labour party on its precision— although I do not suppose that it was deliberate— in choosing to debate this subject on the anniversary of the debate on rail privatisation that took place on

  365
  7 February last year. At that time, I explained that a company called Days Out Ltd. had been formed and was planning to run 60 steam excursions during the year, some of them on completely new lines. I regarded that as a plus for the new railways.
  Railtrack has been very co-operative with charter operators, trying to encourage as many of them as possible to use the tracks. Unfortunately, a number of excursions were cancelled last year as a result of the hot, dry summer: it was feared that fires would break out beside the lines because the ground was so dry. The main problem for charter companies, however, has been the behaviour of Rail Express Systems, which until recently was a wholly owned subsidiary of the old British Rail. It is a great shame that that company has abused its monopoly to make life difficult for charter operators.
  RES was recently sold to Wisconsin Railways, but before that it was obstructing charter operators, overcharging and then refusing to provide the details of its invoices. The Huddersfield Green party, which has run a number of charter trains over the years, experienced problems last year because of mismanagement of the trains by RES. I believe that those abuses have taken place as a result of the company's monopoly on licensed steam excursions.
  Wisconsin Railways has reacted quite favourably to charter operators. It has been in charge only since December, but I understand that it is negotiating with the charter operators and trying to repair the damage done by RES. There is more to be done, however, and I believe that the Rail Regulator will have a role to play. I have tabled an early-day motion on the subject. Most important of all, we need to ensure that there is more competition in the organisation of charter trains. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that.
  I shall be delighted to support the Government in the Lobby. I believe that rail privatisation will bring benefits to passengers. Our only reason for introducing it is our wish to see lower fares and better services. We want rail passengers to gain, and I believe that they will.
  5.32 pm
  Dr. John Marek: The speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) consisted of two parts: an apology for privatisation, and special pleading for charter trains. His discourse on privatisation was composed of some pretty selective statements. For example, he said that the price of electricity had fallen by 19 per cent. since privatisation—in real terms, presumably; but it probably rose by the same amount just before privatisation. He forgot to mention that British Airways' debts were written off. He also tried to make us believe that the privatisation of British Gas had been a success, notwithstanding all the fuss about Mr. Cedric Brown.
  Opposition Members are not convinced that the hon. Gentleman is right. I admit that British Telecom has done well, but that might also have something to do with technology. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that. We would have listened to him more attentively if he had tried to be a little more serious, rather than peddle the usual political points. People are not stupid; they realise that there is more to success, or the lack of it, than privatisation.
  366
  British Rail is in an entirely different position from other privatised companies, because it does not have a monopoly. There are other means of travel, such as cars, aeroplanes and coaches. More important, it has no obvious means of making a profit. In this country and elsewhere in Europe, because of the way in which cars and petrol are taxed, subsidies must generally be paid for the running of a public transport system. That, too, places British Rail in a completely new category. I do not accept the argument that, because previous privatisations have succeeded—some have; others have not—this privatisation will succeed as well.
  The motion mentions the allegation that tickets were taken from a machine at Fenchurch Street station and sold at Upminster, and the Secretary of State referred to another ticket fraud at Walthamstow. I do not believe that such fraud would take place if we had an integrated railways network. It is true that London Underground is run slightly differently from British Rail, but if there were a single system there would be no reason for one part of it to try to cheat the other.
  Much more will now have to be spent on auditing. It is not just a question of catching a clerk who has succumbed to temptation. That is bound to happen sometimes—none of us is perfect, and an audit system is always necessary— but audit provision will now have to be increased simply because, owing to commercial considerations, one half of the organisation will be encouraged to engage in sharp practice at the expense of the other half. On occasion, commercial enterprise will become corruption and fraud.
  If it is proved that tickets were purchased at Fenchurch Street and sold at Upminster, that will be fraud in anyone's book. I shall not prejudge the issue or blame anyone at this stage, but it is clear that something underhand has gone on. I shall await the findings of the inquiry. I noted on Monday, when the Secretary of State replied to a private notice question, that he is to return to the House to explain the reasons for what happened and to tell us what he proposes to do.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley revealed that privatisation has much to do with dogma and ideology. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) used almost the same words, and I am happy to echo them. No real concern is felt for the industry, the travelling public or the country; the Tory party simply wants to divest government of as many functions as possible. That is the real motive for inflicting rail privatisation on the public.
  Mr. Devlin: I beg to disagree. Will the hon. Gentleman consider this point—not a dogmatic point, but a practical point relating to the way in which our public services are funded?
  At the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) described all the great things that a future Labour Government would do to improve health, social services, hospitals and a variety of other things. The hon. Gentleman must accept that—in the words of the hon. Member for Ladywood—that will necessitate a good many hard decisions. There is no doubt that the railways will be at the back of the queue, because they are not as politically emotive as hospitals. Consequently, when the public pie has to be divided, the railways will get the scraps. The benefit of privatisation is not that it is a dogma, but that it enables the infrastructure to receive resources from elsewhere—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to make a speech. Many hon. Members still wish to speak in this short debate and long interventions do not help.
  Dr. Marek: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), but privatisation will increase, not decrease, the subsidy. The additional net subsidy has been calculated to be £850 million a year. There has been some argument about the subsidy for South West Trains. The franchisees will be able to cut the subsidy if they succeed in getting more people to travel and in getting extra revenue, but they can also do it by cutting staffing.
  Many stations in the United Kingdom could have no staff at night. That is important, because many women simply will not go on to a station at night which may be all but deserted if it is not staffed and there is no security. The private franchise operators may employ staff if they can obtain extra revenue, but I suspect that the number of staff employed late at night, when few people travel, will be cut and that there will be fewer, not more, services as a result of privatisation.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not another reason why the franchise process is bad for the public that the current timetable is politically rather than economically driven, with the result that the sums that are likely to be obtained will be reduced accordingly because the potential purchasers know that the Government are desperately trying to get this operation finished by the next election?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. Railtrack was initially valued at about £6.5 billion, but now the Government are talking of getting about £1.5 billion or £2 billion for the sale of that massive estate that is owned by the public. The hon. Member for Colne Valley talked about the £50 reduction in people's electricity bills. We all got £50 off, but we sold the grid, and for ever more, succeeding generations will pay shareholders' profits for that once and for all cut.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is rather like a burglar coming back and offering someone five quid.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right.
  Conservative Members are fond of asking whether the next Labour Government will be able to provide the investment that has hitherto taken place in British Rail. I think that we will. Investment between 1974 and 1979 under the previous Labour Government at constant 1995 prices was just under £1 billion. It was less under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when it was perhaps £700 million. Unfortunately, between 1980 and 1984, investment went down, and reached the £600 million mark one year. It is true that, between 1989 and 1993, the figure has been more than £1 billion, but in 1993–94 it went down to £663 million—a catastrophic decline for which the Conservative party is entirely responsible.
  Average investment has been about £1 billion. That £1 billion should not all come from the public sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that there must be a partnership between the private and
  368
  public sectors. Preferably, the public sector borrowing requirement rules should be redrawn, especially where there is a clear case of a resulting return on capital investment. If such a return was reasonably certain, whether it was public or private would not matter. I am keen that that should happen.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) I have an interest to declare. I am not sponsored by ASLEF, but I am sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—roughly, according to what the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said, under the same conditions. I certainly speak for the union members because they want a decent railway system, high motivation and to serve the public. I also speak for my constituency, for my constituents in Wrexham and, in this case, for nearly everyone in the United Kingdom.
  Dr. Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the Labour party applied those novel management methods to the PSBR, inflation reached 27 per cent., Britain was bankrupt and my constituents were impoverished?
  Dr. Marek: I would not use the word asinine, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think about what he has said a little more carefully. One can borrow for items on which there is no return and no hope of any return, and for others on which there is a good return—almost a guaranteed return—over the life of the investment, which may be anything from 20 to 40 years. We must be a little more intelligent about this and stop only those investments for which there is no guaranteed return.
  I do not believe that, under privatisation, there is any real prospect of a lot of rolling stock. There is certainly no prospect of an early upgrade of the west coast main line. I do not think that trains will run from Euston to Manchester in less than two hours. The regulator will not help. He is not there just for the travelling public; he is also there to enable the franchisees to make profits. Nor will there be cuts in subsidies.
  What can be done? The only answer is that Railtrack must be in public ownership. The system can be regulated more toughly, but it cannot be integrated without a publicly owned Railtrack in the major part of the network. That is the crucial part. We can do what we like by way of regulation, but franchisees will still compete against each other and revenue will have to be raised by obtaining more passengers or by being commercially enterprising.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood that it is premature to say exactly what we will do. We should wait for the prospectus to be issued for the flotation of Railtrack. I agree with what is probably most City opinion, and certainly that of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I am sure that the Labour party will say that it will take Railtrack back into public ownership, whether by taking the voting shares from the company, by demanding equity for subsidy, or simply by taking back the shares— the Government cannot spend the money that quickly if Railtrack is sold in the autumn—but without paying for any of the dealing costs or other associated expenses associated with the share distribution.
  If we do that, I am confident that we shall ensure that Railtrack is not sold and that the flotation will not take place. That is a prerequisite. After that, Britain must

  369
  demand a proper, integrated, functioning railway. The debate about the car is now taking place and changes are being made. The Government realise that we cannot build more and more roads because they simply suck in more and more traffic. We need a debate about how we transport our people and goods up and down the land. An integrated publicly owned and publicly accountable railway will be part of the future and part of that debate.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments in this interesting debate. I welcome the privatisation of rail services for the reasons on which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) touched. Like all other privatisations, rail privatisation will improve the service that the public receive, improve the management of the business, lower the cost to the public of using the service and enhance investment in it.
  The Opposition say that the Conservative party is driven by dogma in wishing to privatise and franchise rail services, but that is far from the truth. We are driven by a desire for rising investment, better services and more use of the railways. I represent a constituency that is riven by two motorways. I know as well as anyone the damage that cars do to the environment and the pollution that they cause, so the matter is of great concern to my constituents. I deplore the fact that, under nationalisation—despite the £54 billion that has been poured into the industry since 1948—there has been such a dramatic decline in rail use by passengers and for freight.
  Nationalisation of the railways has not worked; it has been an unmitigated disaster. It is not dogma that drives Conservatives to want to see the liberalising effects of privatisation, but an urgent desire to see an improvement in the service. If we are looking for dogma, we should look to the Labour party, as its only solution to the problems of the rail network is to renationalise it.
  It is one thing to have principles and to believe in state control—I understand that some Labour Members are still prepared openly to admit to that—but it is quite another to offer as the only response to the declining use of rail the very formula that has proved such a disastrous failure in the past.
  My constituents want investment. They want the investment that privatisation can harness. They want the £1 billion a year that Railtrack has said that it will invest in renewal and maintenance work in the 10 years following privatisation. Instead of endlessly escalating prices, they want fares pegged to the rate of inflation for the next three years, and to below inflation for the four years after that. They want independent regulation of service standards. They want the statutory protection that privatisation will introduce for the very first time.
  The fact that British Rail was accountable to nobody for the service that it provided probably accounts for the fact that, in many cases, that service was famously deplorable. Under nationalisation, British Rail became a national joke, an emblem of British decline—the British disease. People were fed up with being left standing on cold, dark platforms with no information, not knowing when the next train was coming, and not knowing when they would get home or get to work. It was a peculiar hell
  370
  invented by British Rail. It even reached the stage where Saatchi and Saatchi, I think, launched a campaign, for which the slogan was, "Sorry seems to be the hardest word". It certainly was for British Rail because, instead of sorry, all too often we got a shrug as the member of staff shuffled off to get another cup of tea.
  My constituents want an end to the restrictive practices that have flourished under the vast, monolithic structure that was BR. As with so many other nationalised industries, the overriding feeling of the people who used the service was that it was run for the benefit of the employees, not the users. Under privatisation, all that will change. To be successful, the new franchisees will have to make themselves attractive. That means investing more in equipment and people. In the private sector, the old BR shrug simply will not do.
  It is extremely sad that, whereas in 1953 24 per cent. of all goods were carried by rail, only 5 per cent. are today. We all want more goods to be carried by rail. The Railways Act 1993 will help substantially and the greater flexibility that is being introduced should encourage more freight on to rail. In that context, I commend the work of the piggyback consortium—
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed in the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is a consultant to S. G. Warburg Group plc, which is advising Railtrack on the flotation. Do you think that the hon. Gentleman should have declared an interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is purely and simply a matter for the hon. Gentleman concerned. Hon. Members know the rules of the House, including the new rules.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I have had no discussions of any kind with S. G. Warburg on the subject of Railtrack. Had I done so, I would of course had made that clear earlier in my remarks.
  I return to the subject of the piggyback consortium, which includes 40 freight operators, port and terminal operators and local authorities, who have got together to develop a scheme that will increase dramatically the capacity of the rail network to carry fright at relatively little extra cost. I commend the work that it is doing and I wish it well.
  That is more than I can say for the proposal by Central Railways, which involves the construction of 180 miles of new railway between Leicestershire and Calais. There is growing evidence to show that that proposal is technically flawed and economically dubious. In the meantime, it is causing severe blight to my constituents and those of other hon. Members the length of the line. The best thing that I can say about it is that I hope that it reaches an early resolution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully to these remarks.
  In the meantime, I support the Government's proposals. I shall vote with them tonight. I sincerely hope that privatisation of the railways will lead to improved services—I believe that it will—better standards and a better rail system for Britain.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) should have declared the fact that he was a parliamentary affairs

  371
  consultant to S. G. Warburg, which was employed to give advice on merchant banking; we would have been interested to know about that. A range of hon. Members are listed as working as parliamentary consultants to the merchant bank advisers to the privatisation proposals. It is no wonder that they are so in favour of privatisation—they have done very well out of it already. The hon. Gentleman gave a grotesque view of British Rail's past, showing that he knows little of its history. I do not know what the quality of his advice to Warburg was, but I certainly would not want to pay for it in used railway tickets.
  I do not want to be controversial, but rail privatisation is total lunacy. It makes no sense whatever, however it is examined. It is not based on any rational transport or economic arguments, and none of the arguments for it has persuaded the public that it makes any sense. If there is any sanity left on the Conservative Benches, the Government would abandon this proposal, because clearly it is not doing them any electoral favours. No other country in Europe—despite the Secretary of State's comments on the split between the railways and the operators in other countries—is splitting its railway system into all these organisations. No one would follow that crazy example. If any countries were so doing, the Minister would have been able to answer my question.
  The procedure is pretty straightforward. The Government scrap British Rail's debt—a debt that is owed to the people of this country because the money was borrowed. We deserve to see it coming back to us, as we would expect if we had lent money to any other concern. Having scrapped the debt, they sell the assets at knock-down prices. Even the lunatics on the Conservative Benches could sell the assets, because they have discounted them heavily. We know that Railtrack was originally valued at about £6.5 billion. The Government are prepared to accept about £1.5 billion. I would like to know what the real figure is. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much they are prepared to accept for Railtrack. It will not be anything like the £6.5 billion valuation.
  Private operators receive subsidy to the tune of an extra £700 million—from taxpayers again. What sort of privatisation is it when the Government sell off an industry cheap and still expect those who have had their assets taken away to continue to subsidise the private operator?
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the House which union he is sponsored by, and does it invest any of its pension fund money in privatised companies?
  Mr. Banks: I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and I have not faintest idea where it puts its income. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out, he can read its annual report in the Library. Will he then tell me how we can ever find out who puts money into the Tory party, which will not publish its accounts and show which crooks and fascists from abroad invest in it? The hon. Gentleman should not lecture us about honesty and openness in accountancy, either in the unions or the political party. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I feel much better for that.
  This is a lunatic proposal. The Government propose to split a unified railway system into dozens of competing units. As I said, no other European country is doing so.
  372
  I challenge the Minister to tell us which other European country is doing that—I want him to name them specifically.
  Mr. Watts: I am happy to do so: Sweden, Germany and Holland, to name but three, are splitting their infrastructure from the operation of services. They have divided services between inter-city, freight and regional railways and they intend to privatise them. No doubt, as they develop the details of their policy, they will want to follow the successful model that we are implementing in this country.
  Mr. Banks: That is fanciful nonsense. If that is the Minister's answer to my direct question about which country is breaking up its railways into different, competing parts, as we are doing, he has not answered the question.
  Ms Short: It is misleading for the Minister to quote Sweden and Holland in particular, which we have examined as attractive models that seek to reduce track access costs so that road and rail can compete equally and which have two public sector companies. To suggest that that is anything like the Government's proposals is an outrage.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend again makes the point that the Government have been revealed as being prepared to deceive themselves and the country about this privatisation. The railway system will be disorganised and unco-ordinated if it is ever split up.
  I get angry when I hear the argument about the lack of investment in British Rail. Yes, there has been a lack of investment. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) complained about the line in his constituency and the lack of investment in the past 15 years. Has it ever occurred to him that, in that time, his party has been in government? Why does he not blame his party for failing to invest in his British Rail line, as he has a right to do?
  The Government say that the private sector will invest resources. Where is the logic in that? If private investors can profitably invest in the railways, why cannot the state equally do so? The only reason why it has not done so is that the Government would not permit it. The Government deprive undertakings and nationalised industries of investment possibilities, services become less efficient and the Government then say, "Oh, we must privatise industries because they are inefficient and they have failed to invest properly." The Government are responsible, however, for the failure to invest in British Rail and in all the other sectors that we have discussed. We know that the Government can always borrow money far more cheaply than any private company car. If they had had the will to invest, investment could have been made.
  The Government have failed to invest in the railways and public transport generally. I could go on for a long time, but I will not—my few minutes are almost up. I should like to take Ministers around London, not in the armour-plated, plush limousines in which they get chauffeured around London but on the underground, on British Rail—what is left of it—in the south-east or on the clapped-out buses that belch out fumes and poison Londoners 24 hours a day. They might then not be so complacent about travel, railways or privatisation.

  373
  I am not a Front Bencher. I had a moment of glory a few minutes ago when I was left in charge at the Dispatch Box, when I thought that I discharged my duties very responsibly, but I do not have to be cautious and responsible in what I say. I say to my hon. Friends that, if I were in charge of my party, I would tell potential asset strippers of the railways that the buyer should beware and that legalised robbery by the Government of taxpayers' assets would be countered by a Labour Government taking back into public ownership all the assets at a discounted purchase price—assets that have been stripped out of industries that the Government gave to companies at a knockdown price. I would do so—this is a Liberal party suggestion as well, although my proposal is more radical—through interest-bearing bonds that would be redeemed in the future.
  Who would be upset by the policy? It would not be the people whom I represent in the east end or, I suspect, the majority of people in this country. It would, however, certainly put off the asset strippers, the fat cats and the City slickers who just stand around waiting to cream off industries at the public's expense.
  This is a lunatic set of proposals coming from a Government who have clearly lost all control of time, opportunity, policy and their senses.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for me this debate has a strange sense of déjà vu, both in terms of the Opposition's arguments and of the debate on classification between my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). There may be a case for another ten-minute Bill to classify the Opposition horror stories that we have been hearing, especially from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). They would be classified as fiction by any librarian, that is for sure.
  Nostalgia, we often hear, ain't what it used to be, but we will be able to look back on today with great nostalgia. This is the last opportunity for Labour to peddle its horror stories with even a semblance of credibility outside this place, because when we next return to the subject the franchise operators will be providing services. Two are already up and running and we do not know what they will do yet, but we will have evidence gained over a sustained period of the improved service quality that they will deliver.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This relates to my previous point of order. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to declare the rail privatisation interest of Lowe Bell Communications?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, hon. Members know full well the rules of the House. It is matter for them what they declare, or otherwise.
  Mr. Luff: I am not even aware of the rail privatisation interest to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I advise the Chamber of Shipping through Lowe Bell Communications and no one else.
  The current edition of The Economist states:
  374
  "privatisation … is more likely to be a consumer's dream— the start of a new era which will revolutionise Britain's under-invested railway network. Those who jeered that rail privatisation would never get rolling have already had to eat their words.
  Even discounting the better management that privatisation should bring, assured levels of subsidy and a stable fare-structure can hardly fail to deliver improved performance."
  I say, "Amen to that."
  I am already beginning to receive evidence in my constituency of improved service by Great Western Trains. I was delighted to receive a letter on 3 January from its managing director, Brian Scott, who said:
  "I am confident you will see a nice balance between continuity and innovation."
  That is precisely the point of privatisation. He goes on:
  "As far as the Worcester area is concerned we aim to heighten our profile, including the use of local advertising. In order to spearhead this, I am appointing a Cotswolds Business Manager with special responsibility for Worcester, Hereford and the Cotswold Lines."—[Interruption.]
  Is that not interesting? Labour Front Benchers laugh at attempts to increase rail travel. I thought that that was what they wanted. It is certainly what I want. Their laughter speaks volumes for what they are really up to in this debate.
  This morning I received another fax from Mr. Scott. I had asked him about the early experience of rail privatisation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can barrack all they want. They do not like the truth—I know that it hurts them. The truth is that privatisation is already bringing benefits. Mr. Scott says of Great Western Trains:
  "It… faced severe weather problems on its second full weekday of operation. With large sections of motorway and airports in the region closed, Great Western Trains was able to run 99 per cent. of its trains (one Hereford to Paddington cancellation only). Only 5 out of the 133 trains run were over half an hour late despite horrendous weather conditions.
  There was excellent co-operation between Railtrack and Great Western Trains who were also able to assist other (BR owned) Train Operating Companies in difficulties by making four additional station calls."
  That demolishes the myth that there would be a lack of co-operation between railway companies. We saw co-operation in action yesterday, and it delivered people to their destinations, against the odds.
  That myth is but one of a number that I want to demolish. The second myth is the idea of massive fraud. Of course, no part of any nationalised industry has ever suffered any fraud or inefficiency whatever; no constituency Labour party has ever been implicated in any fraud whatever—for the benefit of readers of Hansard, I am saying that ironically. In fact, taxpayers have been ripped off by nationalisation.
  The third myth is that privatisation will mean a worse service. I heard your ruling earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about not being able to draw too many parallels with other privatisations, but I had personal experience of British Telecom this weekend when my telephone went wrong, and there has been a revolution in the service quality that it delivers. That will happen on the railways, too.
  In my constituency even the preparation for privatisation has led to timetables that, for the first time in living memory, give bus connections, to improved timetable displays at stations, to better on-board services on trains and—I say this with no sense of apology—

  375
  to guaranteed services between Worcester and London, for the first time ever. The passenger service requirements, much derided by Opposition spokesmen, provide my constituents with a guarantee of express trains to London. Privatisation means better services, not worse.
  The fourth myth is rather an odd one. It is that trade unions do not like privatisation. On the contrary, it seems that they do. We have heard a lot of evidence about their investments in privatised utilities, and the investors include even the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Will the unions extend that love of the privatised utilities and buy shares in Railtrack? I hope that they will. Then we shall safely be able to say that it will be a case of "do as we do", as well as "do as we say".
  The fifth myth, and probably the one that it is most important to demolish, is the Opposition's fanciful claim that nationalised industries are more responsive than the private sector. Of course they are not. I looked back at a debate that took place in the House on 15 December 1952. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill was being taken on the Floor of the House when the then Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, quoted from a Fabian Society pamphlet about the railways published two years earlier, in 1950. It said:
  "The paramount fact of centralisation"
  of the railways
  "is the remoteness of those responsible for taking important decisions from those whom they affect … The term 'management' indicates, not an organisation of human beings, but an amorphous mass of anonymous individuals with 'no soul to save and no backside to kick'."
  Later Mr. Powell said:
  "British Railways at present are an organisation employing over 600,000 men and the responsibility for decisions in the whole of the system is substantially centralised. No commercial undertaking of so embracing a character as British Railways would endeavour to conduct that undertaking in the top-heavy fashion of British Railways as organised at present".
  That top-heavy organisation endured for 40 years, and only now are we beginning to see the end of that ridiculous situation.
  Perhaps most tellingly of all, Mr. Powell quoted a letter from an engine driver living in Wolverhampton, which still rings true 44 years later:
  "Railway employees prior to 1948"—
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) would do well to listen to this, because it might remove the smile from his face, for once. The letter said:
  "Railway employees prior to 1948 were, unfortunately, for the most part adamantly Socialistic. They have now received an effective dose of Socialism in practice, and verily, it has proved a penetrating lesson. They see with scorn an ever-growing superfluity of officials and inspectors, a daily deterioration in efficiency and a relentless intensification of muddle."
  That is exactly what nationalisation led to—not to responsiveness but to a lack of responsiveness, and to remoteness.
  According to Mr. Powell, the Fabian Society pamphlet concluded that
  "some form of de-centralisation of management into smaller regions, each under a manager having overall responsibility for all departments, is preferable to the present centralised administration."—[Official Report, 15 December 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1071–76.]
  376
  The Fabian Society got it nearly right 40 years ago: Opposition Front Benchers would do well to listen.
  The official history of the Great Western Railway makes exactly the same point when it says:
  "For the railwaymen at large on the Western, nationalisation meant a remote British Transport Commission, headed by people of whom they had never heard, a Railway Executive manned by people only one of whom they knew, and a Western management who obviously would go on playing the traditional tunes."
  There was no increased responsiveness there.
  The sixth and final myth is the argument that investment will be jeopardised by privatisation, but is guaranteed by nationalisation. The history of the railways shows that one of the real problems with nationalisation was that it destroyed investment. After nationalisation, southern region could not pursue its electrification programme, as it should have been allowed to do.
  The official business history of British Railways, written by Dr. T. R. Gourvish with the sanction of the British Railways Board, said the following about the first 25 years of nationalisation:
  "The early years of nationalisation were a bleak period in terms of investment, and many writers have traced some of the railways' enduring problems to this situation."
  It then mentions one or two academic experts, one of whom,
  "Ken Gwilliam, also a transport economist, emphasised the difficulties caused by the accumulated disinvestment of the war and early post-war years, the result, he thought, of both the inadequacy of the war-time financial arrangements and the attitude of the post-war Labour Government. 'Facing inflationary pressure … [the government had] deemed that investment in railways was an expendable item in the short run.'"
  That is the dilemma that will always face Governments of any political colour, who must choose between hospitals, schools and railways. It is one of the principal reasons for putting the railways into the private sector. In terms of investment Labour failed the railways in the early crucial days of the nationalised industry. Nationalisation failed the railways.
  Labour asks us to believe that everything is different now, and that now it would do as it says, not as it did then. That is not a very plausible argument. I have one simple question to ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Would Labour invest more in the railways? Yes or no.
  Ms Short: Yes.
  Mr. Luff: Ah, a pledge. Labour would invest more in the railways. How pleased I am to hear something concrete at last.
  Ms Short: Read my speech.
  Mr. Luff: How much more? That is the next obvious question to ask.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Do not exchange comments with a trainspotter.
  Mr. Luff: We hear no more about the amount. Perhaps to expect more would be asking too much—but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she did say.

  377
  One very distinguished figure connected with the railways is the Rev. W. Awdry, whose works are well known to the children of this country. He once observed:
  "There are two ways of running a railway; the Great Western way and the wrong way".
  I am glad that the Great Western now has the chance to do it the right way again.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not take any interventions. I am not sponsored by a railway union, but in the abortive legal action that I tried to undertake before Christmas in an attempt to halt the franchising of the London-Tilbury-Southend line the rail unions gave me some assistance with legal expenses.
  I am implacably opposed in principle to privatisation of the railways, but, putting that aside, many people who welcome the concept of privatisation still consider the Government's method barmy and foolhardy in the extreme—and that includes some Conservative Members of Parliament. The Conservative-dominated Transport Select Committee has often cautioned the Government about the prudence of the course on which they were embarked, citing especially the problems of inter-ticketing and the transfer of revenues between rail operators.
  I am a member of the Transport Select Committee. During hearings, I asked the then Secretary of State for Transport—the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—and the chairman of the British Railways Board how there could be transparency and probity when management teams were preparing and marshalling bids at the same time as they were running the railways. That problem is emerging in relation to the LTS line.
  The Secretary of State has not given adequate information, to which we are entitled, on when the alleged scam was discovered, by whom, when it began and how widespread it is. It is not sufficient to say that auditors have been called in. He should be able to give us much more information and reassure us that similar problems do not arise—
  Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that he was not sponsored. Although I accept that an entry in the Register of Members' Interests may change, the register shows clearly that at least a year ago he was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that this is the fourth time that a similar point of order has been raised. I have ruled on each occasion. Hon. Members know full well that it is their responsibility to declare interests—indeed, it is a rule of the House that they should do so.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) will notice in Hansard tomorrow that I said with great precision that I was not sponsored by any rail unions. I went on to declare the absolute extent of my involvement with them, which was an attempt to frustrate the decision to franchise LTS in the High Court. The hon. Member really should know the difference. He is a silly Member and I regret that he felt it necessary to interrupt in such a way.
  378
  I regret that there have been diversions into people's film careers and into other privatisations and that hon. Members have not addressed the central problems, which is what I will do and why I shall not give way. What reassurance do we have that other similar alleged scams or problems will not arise in interfaces with rail operators such as Thameslink, Network SouthCentral and even down as far as Exeter station? The problems with ticketing and fares could arise again and we want assurances that they will not.
  How sure is the Secretary of State that what is clearly an irregularity has not interfered with the tendering process? Can he assure us that it has not given some advantage to Enterprise Rail? If he does not know, he should say so. If he can say that there was no problem, he should do so from the Dispatch Box.
  Some Enterprise Rail staff have left the company or been suspended. We are told that Mr. Colin Andrews, the commercial director, has departed. On what terms did he leave? If he resigned, terms must have been established. Has he offered a reason for his resignation? Above all, I want an assurance that no money has been advanced as a sweetener, either for his silence or his swift departure. Mr. Andrews' deputy, the commercial manager, has been suspended. Two area managers, better known as station masters—one at Fenchurch Street and one at Upminster— have also been suspended, as well as two others in the commercial department.
  In my experience as a trade union official before I entered the House, it was common place for people to be suspended for two reasons: first, so that they would not be able to influence an inquiry and, secondly, in their own interests to be able to demonstrate that they would not be able to influence an inquiry. Therefore, why has not the managing director, Mr. Kinchin-Smith, been suspended? I do not rush to judge him; I know him. It would be in the interests of everybody, however, including him, if he were not at his desk. Clearly, it is inappropriate for him to stay. Will the Secretary of State tell us why Mr. Kinchin-Smith is still at work?
  Mr. Kinchin-Smith was also the architect of the penalty fares scheme. When he was running the LTS line, I told him that many of my constituents considered the scheme foolhardy in the extreme. Legitimate, fare-paying passengers who had wanted to purchase tickets but were unable to do so because ticket machines, even those issuing permits to travel, were not working were embarrassed by the scheme. The scheme was a charter for people who did not wish to pay but who were prepared occasionally without any embarrassment to fork out £10.
  It has been discovered that the scheme that Mr. Kinchin-Smith introduced and which he described as the greatest thing since sliced bread has been arbitrarily abandoned. I want to know why. Was London Underground receiving its just receipts? Was it consulted about the abandonment? Were there irregularities in the handling and ending of the penalty fares scheme and, if so, are they the subject of further investigation?
  Reference has been made to the franchising director. The Secretary of State has said that he wants the investigation to be conducted thoroughly, and I expect no less of him. When I was spying on the franchising director at Waterloo station on Monday morning, however, he made it abundantly clear to every journalist who was listening that he saw the LTS scandal as a hiccup and

  379
  that he hoped—indeed, he was determined—that the LTS franchise would be transferred in three to four weeks' time.
  That does not make me confident that the franchising director is not pre-judging the inquiry. Indeed, I regard him as a puppet of the political machine. He is prepared to play the Government's tune, keep his head down and remain determined that the franchise will go through, regardless of what may be discovered. He should resign or be sacked because there is little or no confidence in his stewardship of the LTS franchise and there is little or no confidence in any of the other franchises that have been let.
  Unhappily, the South West Trains franchise was wrongly allowed to go ahead on Sunday. The management team, under Mr. Peter Field, marshalled a bid, but it was inconceivable that the Government and the franchising director would let two management bids go ahead. Clearly, room in the garden was guaranteed for Stagecoach and other operators. I am deeply concerned about the way in which the management team at South West Trains was overlooked. It had all the hallmarks of the franchising arrangements for independent television, which resulted in Thames Television's quality bid suffering.
  I also noticed on Monday, amid all the trumpeting about two franchises being let, that a Stagecoach bus was parked close to platform 13.1 thought that that was a sign of things to come. Inevitably, over time, Stagecoach will reduce its rail services and introduce coaches if it is allowed to get away with it.
  For a number of years I had to spend a great deal of time at Surbiton station. I remember it well. The announcement used to go something like this: "The train arriving on platform 3 will call at Esher, Hersham, Walton, Weybridge, West Weybridge, West Byfleet and Woking. Join the front four cars for Brookwood, Ash Vale, Aldershot, Farnham, Bentley and Alton. The other part of the train is for Worplesdon, Guildford, Farncombe, Godalming, Milford, Witley, Haslemere, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Rowlands Castle, Havant, Bedhampton, Fratton and Portsmouth and trains to the Isle of Wight."
  Trains would also go to Hinchley Wood, Claygate, Oxshott, Cobham, Effingham Junction, Horsley, Clandon, London Road and Guildford, and going the other way they would stop at Berrylands, New Maiden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and Waterloo.
  I cite that list because the areas from which many of those great stations take their names are represented by Conservatives Members of Parliament. It needs to be borne in mind that many of those stations will disappear if the franchises are allowed to endure. Where are the right hon. and hon. Members who represent such constituencies as South-West Surrey, Epsom and Ewell, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Barnes, Twickenham, Mole Valley and North-West Surrey to speak up for the maintenance of services that will disappear when South West Trains, under Stagecoach, has been operating for a few months and decides that it is necessary to close intermediate stations and end off-peak services? That is what is threatened—if not promised— by the insistence on Stagecoach being awarded the franchise for South West Trains.
  When, in a few years' time, people complain that their services have gone, I will point an accusing finger at Conservative Members who acquiesced and voted for the
  380
  surrender of our rail services to Stagecoach, a bus company. Tory Members have either boasted about it here today or denied their constituents an opportunity to have their views articulated in the House, because they were not here.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on that virtuoso performance. During his routine involving the lists of stations, I was afraid that he was going to burst into song. If I remember, the next two lines went:
  "Never paid my fare, man
  had no worries nor cares, man".
  Fortunately, I am sure that that was not the case with my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend's speech was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), whose speech gave us a fair indication of why the Tories are in such a disastrous position. Frankly, if he had made that arrogant and complacent speech in defence of rail privatisation at virtually any public gathering in the country, he would have been laughed at in derision. Only here could he be heard, in at least half the premises, with relative respect.
  Listening to all the Tory Members with vested interests, I thought that it might not be a bad idea if we adopted some football terminology. In the same way as there is the Beazer Homes League, we had visits earlier from the Hill Samuel right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the S. G. Warburg hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Atkinson) and, of course, the Lowe Bell hon. Member for Worcester. The idea that vested interests in the House lie among Members on this side of the Chamber, rather than the Tory side—[Interruption.] Of course there are Opposition Members with interests, but I can tell Members where the money is in terms of interests—it is on the Tory side of the Chamber. The Tories are up to their eyes in vested interests in the privatisation of the railways. Perhaps that is why there is such enthusiasm for privatisation among the tiny number of Conservative Members assembled here tonight.
  When the Railways Bill was in Committee, I invented a hypothetical private railway company called Spivrail. Tory Members who had sat mute throughout the Committee's proceedings were moved at that point to voluble protest. "What an insult to the ranks of private enterprise," they cried. But in fact, that is exactly what has been put in place—a railway for spivs handed over to them by the Government of sleaze. One more fraud investigation and we may even rename it Sleazerail.
  In reality, life has improved upon art. Not even I had anticipated such a series of humiliating fiascos for Ministers in the earliest days of rail privatisation. Let us look at the first three franchises offered. The preferred bidders for Great Western—Resurgence Railways—had to be dropped after we exposed the fact that the managing director had just run a double glazing firm into liquidation, leaving a trail of debt behind it.
  The franchising director, who was very accurately portrayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, employs hundreds of lawyers at £250 an hour and more to drive the measure through. Why did none of them uncover that minor difficulty in the background of

  381
  Resurgence Railways? Personally, I thought it a reasonable idea to check with Companies House, and there was the information available for anyone who wanted to find it. But the Tories, of course, did not want to find it.
  At that point, the South West franchise had to be juggled. Otherwise, Ministers would have ended up with three management buy-outs, which would not have said a lot about the level of private sector interest. So Stagecoach suddenly became the preferred bidder—the company with the worst record of anti-competitive practices in the United Kingdom. I can tell the House that the people of the south and south-west ain't seen nothing yet. In Southampton, for instance, Stagecoach is remembered as the company to which the Tories sold the bus company for less than the value of the local bus station, which the entrepreneurial Stagecoach promptly sold off for development. The result is that, to this day, Southampton does not have a bus station. Let us hope that there is some safeguard in the franchise agreement preventing Stagecoach from selling the railway station.
  Then we move on to fiasco No. 3—the London-Tilbury-Southend line—and what a cracker that is. Spivrail does indeed live. I love the names that the companies come up with—Resurgence Rail, Enterprise Rail, Victory Rail, Thatcher Rail. How many more of these names will we have? It really is a case of the louder they talk of their honour, the faster we should count the trains as they disappear.
  Let us be clear about what has happened with Spivrail—or rather, the London-Tilbury-Southend line, or Enterprise Rail. There has been an absolutely predictable development following the tearing apart of our national rail network into dozens of fragments, each of which owes loyalty only to itself and its prospective shareholders.
  Dr. Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to use the word "spiv"? He is tarring the employees and the management team of that railway line, and he is prejudicing the inquiry that is taking place. Shame on the hon. Gentleman—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing that was out of order. I often say in this House that Members are responsible for their own comments.
  Mr. Wilson: It was nice to hear from the prisoner's friend.
  In the case of the LTS line, the alleged victim was London Underground, but when the Consumers Association recently checked up on the fares being offered where more than one operator was involved, it was clear that the victims were undoubtedly—there are no allegations here—the passengers. A fragmented railway is a bad deal for the taxpayer and for the passenger, and every day that passes confirms the basic lesson that we were preaching when the Railways Bill was introduced.
  I wish to make a small inquiry about the LTS scandal. Will the Minister confirm that when the consultants who check travel patterns went to Upminster in December to carry out a routine check, they found that the relevant records had been removed to Southend? The consultants,
  382
  by whose assessments the fare revenue is divided up between the operators, were then dependent on information provided by LTS management, rather than randomly selected information. Does that not suggest a degree of premeditation? Why was no action taken on that by the franchising director?
  There is a massive vested interest and conflict of interest involved for management teams in the proposed buy-outs. They have all the time and incentive in the world to put schemes in place for the post-privatisation period at the same time as they are supposedly running a public sector railway. That is the problem with management buy-out teams.
  I have two proposals to make today. First, in light of what we have learned over the past few days, the embarrassment that the Government have suffered and the clear evidence that this is not restricted to just one franchising operation or prospective operation, the franchising operation should be suspended in its entirety until the investigations are complete. I do not expect the Tories to yield to that, as they are into the scorched earth phase and are trying to push the measure through.
  Secondly, as soon as a management buy-out team has notified its interest as a prospective bidder, it should cease to be the management team for that railway until the franchise has been awarded. If that is not done, conflicts of interest will continue to arise.
  I have worked with people from all parties in the past three years who have a common concern for our railways. One of those was the late Robert Adley. Two nights before he died, I met Robert Adley in the Member's Lobby. He patted his inside pocket with immense satisfaction and said, "I have got them here—the amendments signed by six Tory Members." Using a code that most of us here will understand, I asked him, "Including the right to bid?" "Of course," he said, "That is the one that matters—that will kill the whole thing."
  Two days later, Robert Adley was dead, and the tragedy of historic proportions was that there was no Tory Member to take his place. If there had been, the subsequent course of events would have been very different. The right of British Rail to bid for franchises was, as Robert Adley rightly identified, crucial. If it had had that right, it would have won the franchises—it is as simple as that. That was also recognised by Lords Peyton and Clinton-Davis, and others from all parties who pursued that amendment in the House of Lords.
  Eventually, in what seemed at the time to be a success, the Government were forced to concede the principle— although, as always, the precise wording of the amendment was crucial. In the absence of an Adley to hold out for more, the amendment was written to the advantage of those whose aim was still to destroy British Rail and the national rail network. Nine franchises have now been offered, and in each and every case British Rail has been denied the right to bid. In other words, the will of Parliament was cynically and systematically negated to satisfy the obsession with privatisation at all costs.
  I hoped that one or two Tory Members might be loyal to the memory of Robert Adley and might do something about it now that the scale of the affront is apparent. Judging from what we have heard today, however, I probably hoped in vain. The refusal to allow British Rail to bid is an affront to Parliament. Parliament would not

  383
  have given the Government their legislation without that apparent concession. The Government should never forget that.
  Privatisation is a rotten deal for the taxpayer, who has been forced to pay private operators more than British Rail would have required for the same level of service in order to satisfy Ministers' ideological spite. It is also a tragedy for the people who work for the railways, thousands of whom will pay for the franchising process with their jobs. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State mutters from a sedentary position. He complained earlier about being called a right-wing ideologue. Give me a real right-wing ideologue any day rather than a bogus liberal without any principles who plays the role of a right-wing ideologue because that is the prevailing mood of the moment.
  If the Secretary of State wants to regain his credentials as the bicycling baronet rather than the right-wing ideologue, there is a simple test for him. He should reopen the LTS franchising procedure and give British Rail the right to bid. Does he have the guts to do that? I doubt it very much—but that is how he will be judged, not on his own self-image.
  I am grateful to a financial journalist named Michael Walters of the Daily Mail for what is undoubtedly the best definition of Railtrack privatisation that I have yet seen. He wrote with disarming honesty.
  "Beneath the financial filigree, Railtrack is a conduit for distributing State moneys to private investors. All being well, the train operating companies collect subsidies and pass them to Railtrack to pay as dividends to shareholders."
  There you have it. I particularly like the phrase "all being well".
  For anyone deluded enough to believe that rail privatisation has anything to do with quality of service, Mr. Walters was again very helpful in clarifying the position. He wrote:
  "Forget the frustrations which can actually attend travelling by train. The service itself scarcely counts in the flotation of Railtrack. What matters most is the quality of the financial engineering. The bankers understand that the less popular Railtrack appears, the more of a bargain they will have to make it."
  On that point at least, the Tories have triumphed. They are the ultimate financial engineers. Through four Secretaries of State, their success in discrediting rail privatisation could scarcely have been improved upon. In those terms, it has worked.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) pointed out, for the purpose of setting access charges the assets of Railtrack were found to be worth £6.5 billion. On that foundation, the whole lunatic system of access charges was based. Now the talk is of selling it off for perhaps a quarter of that. That is financial engineering of the highest quality. It is also part of the reason why Labour cannot and will not acquiesce in the sale of Railtrack.
  Let us look at just one example in the most recent piece of financial engineering. The Minister may wish to explain the thinking behind it. Understandably, Railtrack does not want to be liable for compensation to train operators. So, incredibly, the Treasury is to give more money to the train operators so that they can pay it to Railtrack in supplementary access charges, so that Railtrack can pay it back to the train operators as compensation. The net cost to the taxpayer of that one
  384
  device will be £84 million in the first year and some £250 million over five years. Let the House be absolutely sure of the bottom line: the Government may be privatising, but in the case of the railways it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill. That is the factor which distinguishes rail privatisation from all previous privatisations and it is crucial in relation to Labour's intentions.
  Why should the taxpayer fund the profits of a privately owned Railtrack rather than see every penny of his or her contribution to the railways go into the creation of better, more modern services? What conceivable case is there for the proceeds from the property assets of Railtrack to be converted in future into shareholders' dividends and boardroom salaries rather than ploughed back 100 per cent. into railway investment? Let any potential investor note those words: 100 per cent. There is no such justification, moral, financial or political.
  Mr. Riddick: The Leader of the Opposition has talked about his desire to create a stakeholder economy under a Labour Government. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what he envisages stakeholding would represent in the railways if there were a Labour Government?
  Mr. Wilson: There are many ways of stakeholding. At the moment, we are all stakeholders in the railways. We all share a stake in the railways and we shall always do so because as taxpayers we shall all subsidise them, no matter who owns and operates them. Another way of being a stakeholder in the railways is to work for the railways. If the hon. Gentleman's idea of stakeholding is for Stagecoach to come in and make 1,000 people redundant or for Wisconsin Railways to come in and make 4,000 people redundant, that is not my idea of stakeholding.
  The kind of stakeholders whom I respect are not just those who own and profit, but those who work and those who travel. That is my idea of stakeholding. That is the kind of railway that we shall have—an expanding railway. People will be able to look across to the continent and say, "Yes, let us have some of that." No Government of any country in the world would be prepared to sacrifice their railway network on the altar of lunatic, bigoted, dogmatic privatisation. The British people do not want it either.
  I make Conservative Members one final promise. Let them go ahead with this if they wish. Let them do the vandalism. Let them carry out the scorched earth policy. But let none of them be unaware that they will pay a high electoral and historic price as the party which, in the face of all rational advice, set out to destroy our national rail network.
  6.46 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The House always enjoys the wild man of the north act from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but much less impressive is his failure to explain clearly his party's position. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), had a chance to do so when she opened the debate and the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to do so in replying to the debate, but he has failed. Perhaps nothing different should be expected of a party which in all things says one thing and does another.

  385
  I will give the hon. Gentleman an eleventh hour opportunity to answer three key questions. If so-called new Labour ever forms a Government at some time in the future, will Railtrack be renationalised and, if so, how? The hon. Gentleman's leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said at the 1995 Labour party conference that there would be a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway system under a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), with the honesty that comes from the Back Benches, said that Railtrack must be in public ownership. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also made his position crystal clear.
  On 8 January the hon. Member for Ladywood said:
  "It is for this reason that we are committed to a publicly owned railway. There is no other way to protect the national interest. We will announce our plans for Railtrack if and when the prospectus is issued".
  Perhaps she will humour us on this side of the House and accept that the prospectus will be issued.
  Ms Short: Read my speech.
  Mr. Watts: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell the House now.
  Ms Short: The Minister can read my speech—it was all in there.
  Mr. Watts: I listened carefully and there was not an answer to that question.
  Ms Short: The Minister wrote his speech before the debate.
  Mr. Watts: I did not, and I have made copious notes as I have listened to the debate.
  Would new Labour breach new contracts with private franchise operators? Opposition Members seem to despise such operators. Will the contracts entered into with the first two franchise companies and those that will be entered into with the next four and in subsequent tranches be honoured or not? If investment of more than £1 billion a year by Railtrack plus investment by rolling stock companies and train operating companies is inadequate, how much should be invested and who will pay?
  Ms Short: It is extraordinary that the Government, who are in the process of implementing a policy, should assume that they are going to lose the election to Labour and therefore spend the whole debate asking the Labour party what it will do about the mess that the Government have created.
  Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady said that I should have listened to her speech. She should have listened with greater care to what I said. I asked the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North three questions—one, two, three— about what would happen if so-called new Labour were ever to form a Government. I note that we have still not had any answers to those questions.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Watts: No.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister asked for answers.
  Mr. Watts: If the hon. Gentleman is going to answer the three questions, I willingly give way.
  Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said, it is pathetic for the Minister to be asking questions instead of spelling out a policy for the railways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer, answer."] If Conservative Members say it three times, I will answer three questions.
  First, on Railtrack, we will spell out our precise position on the flotation, which we must. Secondly, on the franchises, we have made our position absolutely clear and specifically answered the question that the Minister asked. Thirdly, on rolling stock it is interesting to note that if the Government had accepted our proposals on leasing railway rolling stock years ago, we would not have lost 8,000 manufacturing jobs in the railway industries, the York carriage works would not be closed and we would have new rolling stock on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. We do not have to take lessons on that because we suggested it to the Government.
  Mr. Watts: I noted one answer out of three to the questions that I posed. I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the contracts with franchise operators will be honoured. It is important to hear that from his mouth, as well as from that of the hon. Member for Ladywood, because sometimes it is not clear who is the principal transport spokesman for the Labour party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) asked whether Labour spoke for the people or for the trade unions. His question shows why we cannot get a clear answer to my other two queries. It is the fear of its trade union masters that prevents the Labour party from spelling out its policy on the renationalisation of Railtrack and its attitude to investment.
  We have often heard allegations that the flexibility allowed in passenger service requirements for a commercial franchise would lead to dramatic cuts in services. It is worth spending a couple of minutes examining how, in practice, the first two private operators have planned their services. Great Western, far from slashing services as was predicted time and time again by the Opposition, is committed to continuing to run at least the current number of services and to reducing journey times. That includes services to Fishguard, which I recall were a central feature of one of our earlier debates. There is a commitment to refurbish rolling stock. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, said earlier from a sedentary position, "Ah, a coat of paint." He could not be more wrong. I was talking to Brian Scott, the managing director of Great Western Holdings, on Monday evening at Paddington station.
  Mr. Wilson: South West.
  Mr. Watts: It is Great Western—Brian Scott. My facts are correct.
  I asked Brian Scott when he was going to introduce new livery on the trains. He said that he was in no hurry to do that because he wanted his customers to have refurbished interiors and more comfort inside the trains before turning his attention to cosmetic treatment of the exteriors of the trains. I take great comfort from that.

  387
  In the case of South West Trains and Stagecoach, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will know that Stagecoach is planning to maintain the current levels of service and make significant improvements in the reliability and the punctuality of the services that it runs.
  I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that Stagecoach has owned South West Trains, by my calculation, for a little under 65 hours. He should be a little more patient and wait to hear details of its investment plans for improving stations and further plans that it may announce in respect of rolling stock. I am sure that the company will be pleased to share its plans in detail with him and with other hon. Members and their constituents whom it serves as customers.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who clearly wants a job as a station announcer—I am sure that he would do it extremely well—asked what assurance there was that there are not other routes where revenue is shared between British Rail subsidiaries and London Underground and where similar irregularities may be taking place. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain that in the past few days British Rail has sent its audit teams to all stations where the allocation of revenue between London Underground and British Rail subsidiaries is significant. The result of the checks on those stations revealed one irregularity— at Walthamstow central, involving 30 tickets worth about £250.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock also asked me to speculate about the reasons why other employees of LTS Rail have been suspended. It would be unreasonable for me or for anyone else to speculate on reasons for those suspensions until the investigations have been completed and the facts are known. It is unreasonable for those individuals to be placed under suspicion in that way until their role, if any, in those events has been established and we know the full facts.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Watts: No, I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and I have only five minutes left.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock also asked about prejudging the decision on the subsequent award of the franchise for that service. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that the franchising director has assured my right hon. Friend that until he, the rail regulator and British Rail are satisfied that the allegations have been investigated fully there can be no question of a transfer of the franchise and that no decisions will be taken until the outcome of the investigations is known.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) elicited an interesting view from the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who declared himself within a few breaths both as being in favour of privatisation and as wanting Railtrack to remain nationalised. That is typical of the Liberal party—a policy which allows it to face in both directions at the same time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley also mentioned charter services and praised the co-operation between Railtrack and charter operators. He also referred to the difficulties that some operators have had with Rail Express Systems. I share his confidence that now that that
  388
  company is in private ownership it will look on charter services as an important market for it to service and an area for growing its businesses.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) reminded the House that nationalisation of British Rail has not worked and said that his support for privatisation was based not on dogma but on a desire for better services for his constituents. He said that they wanted investment, which privatisation will bring, and fares to be controlled in the passenger's interest. He can assure his constituents that they will get it from privatisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley also referred to advertising slogans. I recall that one used by British Rail was "We're getting there". After nearly 50 years of nationalisation, the best that could be claimed for the nationalised rail system was that it was getting there. The train had still not reached the terminus. My hon. Friend also referred to freight. I am confident that privatisation of British Rail's freight businesses will arrest the decline in the amount of freight carried by rail. Like my hon. Friend, I am enthusiastic about the Piggyback proposals which are being examined as part of the project to upgrade the west coast main line.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh, in common with a host of Opposition Members, confused cost and value, as they so often do. It is true that the replacement cost of Railtrack assets has been estimated at £6.5 billion, but that does not mean that that is what they are worth. The flows of funds through Railtrack from track access charges that will be employed in maintaining and upgrading the system will be what adds value to those assets.
  Similarly, in relation to ROSCOs, the hon. Member for Eastleigh said that the price paid was a giveaway—he described it as a knock-down price—at £1.8 billion. It is perhaps coincidental that that is the same amount as the written-down value of the physical assets that were acquired. I should like him to explain sometime how it could be in that company's interest to run down its business.
  We have heard no answers, except one, to the key questions that the Labour party must answer. For the fifth time since January last year, the Labour party has taken up the House's time to debate privatisation; yet it is unwilling to spell out its plans. I have no hesitation in expressing my confidence that my right hon. and hon. Friends will defeat the Labour motion and support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 298.

  Division No. 45]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Berry, Roger

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  389

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harvey, Nick

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Henderson, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Heppell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hodge, Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell-Savours, D N

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

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Chris (Littlebogh & Sdw)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCartney, Ian

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Robert (North Down)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Madden, Max

  Galloway, George

  Maddock, Diana

  Gapes, Mike

  Mahon, Alice

  Garrett, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meacher, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gunnell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  390

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Short, Clare

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, Bill

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Joan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Randall, Stuart

  Watson, Mike

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Greg Pope.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bums, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beggs, Roy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clappison, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Colvin, Michael

  391

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothfeny)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jack, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan, Alan

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Faber, David

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

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  LJdington, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mills, lain

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Harris, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hawksley, Warren

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heath. Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  392

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pawsey, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cynl D (Bexl'yn'tn)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Richards Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Trimble, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rurnbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Willetts, David

  Smyth The Reverend Martin

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sproat, lain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Steen, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on the progress that it is making with privatisation, particularly with the start of private passenger services on the South West and Great Western lines, offering the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to the taxpayer; recognises that this demonstrates that the Opposition's attempt to halt privatisation has failed; and looks forward to the flotation of Railtrack in May as an opportunity for the railways to access private finance for investment.

  Post Office Privatisation
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
  That this House opposes the Prime Minister's stated intention to reopen the question of the privatisation of Royal Mail and Parcelforce; records its concern that such a privatisation by Her Majesty's Government would threaten the close co-operation which exists between the Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters and places in commercial jeopardy post offices and sub post offices in communities where presently they play a vital role; believes that the Government should safeguard the universal access and uniform pricing of this country's postal services; recognises that the Post Office does not call for or receive a subsidy from the public purse; and is of the view that British customers will continue to have the best opportunity of enjoying this standard of service only if the Post Office remains as a single corporation within public ownership.
  One of the gravest charges that may be laid at the door of the present Government is that they have ceased to serve Britain's national interests. In fact it sometimes appears that, obsessed as they are by the Conservative party's interests and divisions, they have ceased even to recognise that such a thing as the national interest exists. In few areas of policy is that more blatantly the case than in their approach to the future and potential for development of Britain's Post Office.
  It is not disputed, even by the Government, that our publicly owned and run Post Office is efficient, well run and profitable. Not only is it without subsidy, but it makes substantial contributions to the Exchequer. It is, in short, a public sector success story, and not only that but a British success story; but the Government steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that because it does not fit their blind ideology.
  Nor is it disputed that, given the opportunity, the Post Office might further develop its commercial potential, with advantage to the public. The Post Office and the private sector believe that there is special potential advantage to be gained by successful public-private partnerships, which might readily be developed if Britain's Post Office were to be given the commercial freedoms enjoyed by similar organisations in other states of the European Union.
  Under successive boards and chief executives, the Post Office has brought pressure to bear on the Government to take what appeared to most observers to be the requisite common-sense decisions. The response has been a blank rejection, accompanied by the dogmatic incompetence that is the Government's dubious hallmark.
  As long ago as February 1994, representatives of the Post Office told the all-party Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there was a sense of approaching crisis due to indecision about the future of the Post Office. By then, its structure had been under review since July 1992. Post Office management, the work force, the Select Committee and even, it seems to me, some of the private sector competitors of the Post Office all seemed to believe that the Post Office was being messed about by the Government to the detriment of its ability to deliver its present services and of its competitive potential.
  In June 1994, after that two-year review, the Government finally produced their Green Paper, in which they explicitly endorsed the opinion, expressed in the Select Committee report, that the Post Office
  394
  "cannot be retained in its present form".
  Three options were discussed. They were full privatisation, commercial freedom without a change of ownership in the public sector, and splitting up of the Post Office accompanied by partial privatisation—the Government's preferred option.
  No mention had been made of the privatisation of the Post Office—a major piece of policy—in the 1992 Conservative general election manifesto. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out, even Margaret Thatcher ruled out privatisation of the Post Office, saying:
  "I have indicated that the Royal Mail would not be privatised. People feel very strongly about it, and so do I."
  It became obvious, however, as soon as the Government had made their proposals, that the chief, if not almost the only, beneficiaries would be the City institutions and advisers on whom the Government have lavished so many millions of taxpayer's money, and that the chief losers would be the public, whose money was being spent, and especially members of the public for whom the local post office or the postal services represent a lifeline. The Labour party and the Post Office unions set in train a strong public campaign which received an equally strong public and parliamentary response. Then, as now, it showed that the Government are completely out of touch with public opinion. Of nearly 16,000 responses to the Green Paper, only 60 favoured privatisation. The Government were forced to back down and their resentment was evident—I do not think that it is too much to say that they sulked. However, it appeared that the Government had accepted—with much bad grace— the rejection of their proposals.
  As they had been forced to acknowledge that there should be change if the Post Office were to continue to be at the leading edge in the development of communication services, pressure mounted afresh on the Government to accept reality and to allow the greater commercial freedoms from which the Post Office has clearly demonstrated it can benefit. A further report from the all-party Select Committee in January 1995 made such a recommendation. It also said:
  "The continuing uncertainty over the future of the Post Office benefits no-one except foreign competitors".
  The Select Committee's next point was even more relevant. It stated:
  "Whatever the Government's response, it is essential that a clear statement be made, either that specific changes will be adopted and implemented without delay or that there will be no change in the status of the Post Office for the foreseeable future".
  The Select Committee went on to call for stability so that the Post Office could get on with developing its services.
  For a brief halcyon period it looked as though at least a little sanity had set in. In May 1995, the then Secretary of State—I beg his pardon, I mean the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the present Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, who might be thought, in view of all those titles, to be speaking for the Government of which his membership is described in such exhaustive terms, told the House that the Government had, in effect, accepted representations from the Post Office that the scale of its contributions to Treasury coffers was hindering its ability to invest and almost wiping out its profits. He said that a fairer level of return would allow

  395
  the Post Office to finance investment in new technology, which would enhance both productivity and competitiveness.
  On 11 May 1995 the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) responded to the Trade and Industry Select Committee's call for
  "an EFL set by reference to an agreed percentage of planned profits".
  He suggested that the Government's previous practice of milking the Post Office for revenue to the detriment of the service it might provide would cease—or at least that is what those who heard him thought that he told the House. He said:
  "I am prepared to agree that in future we shall aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit. I hope to make progress in that direction this autumn."
  That would have still resulted in a contribution from the Post Office to the Exchequer of about £172 million this financial year. The right hon. Gentleman went even further and said that, because the Government wanted to discuss arrangements with the management of the Post Office for
  "a more stable relationship in the future … we have attempted to quantify, within the constraints that I have set out, what that EFL might look for in the future".—[Official Report, 11 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 885–87.]
  As late as September 1995, the right hon. Gentleman commissioned KPMG Management Consulting to produce a report after plans for privatisation had been abandoned. The report, which was leaked to the Financial Times, was said to agree on the value and effect of such investment and to suggest that it would open up the possibility that postal charges would not have to rise until the end of the century. That would benefit the public and commercial users of the Post Office, as well as making it far more competitive.
  Then came last November's Budget, when the Government announced a change in the financing arrangements for the Post Office. Without consultation even with the Post Office board, the Chancellor announced that, on top of the £1.25 billion that the Post Office has contributed to the public purse over the past 10 years, it is to contribute a further £900 million—almost as much again—over the next three years alone. That is almost £1 million a day. As the Post Office pointed out, that was the biggest Government financial demand in its history, which followed hard on the heels of the biggest Government financial demand on British taxpayers levied in recent Budgets.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am very interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. Will she commit a future Labour Government to taking only half the profits of the Post Office if it were under their control?
  Mrs. Beckett: At the moment we are concerned with the policy of the Government. We shall have to review a whole range of matters—some of which may be raised later in the debate—about the future policy of the Post Office should we be successful at the next general election. In the meantime and for the next three years— which takes us to the deadline for the next general election—the Post Office will be milked of its profits. Does the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle
  396
  (Mr. Leigh) support that policy or will he support us in the Lobby tonight? He is clearly interested in these matters, as he said a moment ago. Does he support the Government's policy? I look forward to seeing him in our Lobby tonight; I am sure that that was the purport of his intervention.
  As I said, almost £1 million will be extracted from the Post Office every day. The Post Office has made a record-breaking profit, yet when it has paid the levy and its corporation tax, it could end up in the red. Once again, most of us will lose. It is not enough that the Government's general tax increases since 1992 are still equivalent to 6p on the basic rate of tax for a typical family. Now the people of this country must pay another Tory tax in the form of higher postal charges—a "stamp tax"—because that is inevitably how most of the cash demand will have to be financed.
  Furthermore, British business will face another tax, as business users of our postal services have pointed out. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has seen the most recent issue of The House Magazine, but I draw his attention to a joint advertisement which contains quite a plain message from business users of Post Office services. They point out that, as a result of the Government's policies, jobs will be lost in their industries. They, too, no longer feel safe with the Tories.
  The Post Office board is faced with complete disruption of its financial management entirely out of the blue. Its chances of beating off competition from other European Union countries are seriously diminished. The folly of the decision is not all that is remarkable. It is clearly an abrupt and a complete reversal of the policy announced less than six months previously by the right hon. Member for Henley, the Deputy Prime Minister.
  This shabby little episode shows once again how dangerous it is to rely on anything that Ministers say. Faced with the contradiction between those assurances and the Government's actions, the Secretary of State could mutter only that his predecessor had said it was "an aim" to move in that direction, rising magnificently above the clear evidence that the Government have lurched in the opposite direction.
  Now we have the final stupidity of yet another lurch to the right. Speaking on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, the Prime Minister told the nation that, if re-elected, the Government would embark yet again on the dogmatic and unnecessary folly of Post Office privatisation. That is yet another example of why the Post Office, like Britain's future, is not safe in the Government's hands.
  The Labour party rejects privatisation of the Post Office. It is unnecessary because the Post Office is already achieving standards that are the envy of the world, despite the difficulties that the Government place in its path. Privatisation would undermine the public service ethos of the Post Office, which is one of the reasons why it has achieved those high standards. Under the Conservatives, consumers can expect a postal charge increase, the sell-off of Crown post offices without proper public consultation, and the privatisation of Royal Mail and Parcelforce. Those policies are bound to lead to a threat to the high standards of postal service that we now enjoy, with postal deliveries to all parts of Britain at a common price.
  That is not just evidence of the Government's neglect of Britain's commercial interests if it conflicts with that which the right of the Conservative party wants to hear or

  397
  of the degree to which the Government are out of touch even with their own supporters. More gravely, it shows that the Government utterly fail to understand that public services such as the railways or the Post Office do not just underpin the community but help to create community— especially in rural areas. They are services without which communities cannot survive.
  Opinion polls consistently show great public support for the Post Office and concern at the threat to its future posed by Government policies. In recent months, many Conservative Members have registered their concerns about post office closures, and those of Crown offices in particular.
  The Government's case for privatising services such as the Post Office is that commercial freedom is incompatible with the service's place in the public sector. That is just the kind of commercial freedom that the Government have been prepared to offer other public sector organisations. The most recent example is the BBC, but there are others. When the right hon. Member for Henley came under pressure when giving evidence to the Select Committee on that point, his argument seemed to terminate with the fact that it would be a matter of policy, as to whether or not commercial freedom for the Post Office could be undertaken—and as it was not Government policy, it was therefore impossible. That circular and self-satisfying argument clearly does not address the case.
  The Government's other argument is neatly self-fulfilling—that privatisation is necessary because Government interferes in a public sector Post Office to its disadvantage. They claim that the way to protect the Post Office from the Government's incompetence, stupidity and short-sightedness is to remove the Post Office from their control. At last, we are on common ground. However, the way to protect the Post Office is not to put it in the private sector but to put the Government out of power.
  7.31 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg
  to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the substantial benefits which have flowed to customers from the Government's programme of privatisation; recognises that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in the United Kingdom are already in the private sector; and endorses the Government's continuing commitment to a universal postal service at a uniform and affordable tariff and a nationwide network of post offices.".
  This evening's debate was trailed as being about the "threat" of Post Office privatisation. The word "threat" begs a large question. As I shall now show, before I deal with the specific issues of the Post Office, privatisation does not represent a threat. On the contrary, it provides the conditions for enterprise and success—
  "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition",
  to quote the Labour party's new clause IV.
  The privatisation programme is one of the great successes of this enterprising Government. The only threat that it presents is to the cherished but discredited dogma of nationalisation that is central to the beliefs of many in the Labour party. We were told that new clause
  398
  IV was meant to signal a change of heart by the Labour party. We knew that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thought differently. Before clause IV was changed, the right hon. Lady said:
  "I am not against Clause IV."
  She said also:
  "And changing it would give the wrong signal to the party."
  She went on to say that there were
  "circumstances in which I would want to see a return to public ownership—for example, in the water industry."
  Perhaps the right hon. Lady can explain. Will that feature in Labour's election manifesto? Is nationalisation back on the agenda? Or is no one paying any attention to the right hon. Lady?
  The motion for today's debate gives the lie to Labour's attempts to portray a change in attitude. Even the late Leader of the Opposition was far more enlightened than his party seems to be today. He told us, "Ownership is irrelevant." Clearly not in Labour's stakeholder economy. Continuing to parrot their opposition to privatisation and extolling the benefits of state control would appear to be integral to stakeholding. After the successes of our privatisation programme, however, it is not now so much about controlling the commanding heights as about the commanding stakes. Who is going to be holding them?
  We know all about the trade unions—those great upholders of principle who condemn privatisation while they make a tidy profit on the back of the success of privatised industries and then, no doubt, use those resources to help sponsor Labour Members of Parliament who they put up to oppose privatisation. There is no doubt either that that is Labour's idea of a virtuous circle.
  If there is a threat to our economy, it comes not from privatisation, which taken as a whole has dramatically enhanced our economic performance, but from the right hon. Lady who supported Arthur Scargill and his striking miners, backed the "resolve" and "fortitude" of the Wapping strikers, wanted to keep clause IV, called for a return to secondary picketing, backs a national minimum wage, supports the social chapter, wants a training tax on industry and would clearly revel in some meddlesome stakeholding. The real threat to the Post Office would come if the right hon. Lady and her trade union friends ever got a chance to put that agenda into practice.
  Privatisation has brought many benefits. They include benefits to the taxpayer from revenues totalling almost £60 billion and the £55 million in corporation tax that is paid to the Exchequer each and every week—where before, nationalised industries cost £50 million a week. It has brought benefits to customers. BT's prices are down by 40 per cent., gas prices are down by 23 per cent. and electricity prices are down by 7 per cent—all after taking inflation into account.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: It is clear to everyone that the external financing limit set by the Government is about to put up prices in the Post Office. May we return to the Government's hand in the Post Office, which is taking so much from that service's investment plans?
  Mr. Lang: In due course. I am talking about the benefits of privatisation. It brings benefits to employees, who have been given the opportunity to own shares in

  399
  their companies. Ninety-five per cent. of BT's employees took that opportunity, as did nine out of 10 British Aerospace employees. Labour would have denied them that opportunity, just as it would deny that opportunity to the employees of British Energy and Railtrack. Seven million more shareholders today have a stake—a real stake—in British industry. Labour says that it supports wider employee share ownership, while opposing it at every turn. It is yet more of the say one thing, do another politics of the Labour party.
  The motion talks about the threat of privatisation. Perhaps Labour Members should visit some of the industries that we have privatised. Try telling British Aerospace, which is now the UK's largest industrial exporter and the largest defence contractor in Europe, about that threat. Try telling British Airways, which is now the most profitable airline in Europe and one of the most profitable in the world, about the threat. Rolls-Royce has more than tripled its share of the world's civil aeronautical engine business since privatisation. British Steel is now one of the most efficient steel producers in the world, exporting half its output. Try telling those companies about the threat of privatisation. It is nonsense, and ideological nonsense at that. All those companies have seen privatisation as an opportunity, and acted on it—and our economy has been the main beneficiary.
  The debate so far has illustrated once again the Opposition's reluctance to face reality about the future of the Post Office and postal services in the UK. They take refuge in complacency, distortion of the arguments and whipping up unfounded fears about the future provision and level of postal and Post Office services. The Government's position and policy on the Post Office is clear. The Green Paper "The Future of the Post Office", published in June 1994, set out the case for changes that we believe will be necessary in the not too distant future if the Post Office is to remain successful in the face of the threats and opportunities that all its main businesses must face.
  Ms Judith Church: If the Secretary of State felt that Post Office privatisation was such a good idea in 1994, why did the Government not proceed with it then, or include such a proposal in the Queen's Speech for this Session?
  Mr. Lang: It is well known that the Government decided that there was insufficient parliamentary support, so pursued an alternative course in the interim.
  The competition is growing and includes the fax, the telephone, electronic mail, couriers, British private sector companies that can be seen on the streets every day, such as Securicor and Business Post, foreign companies that run giant international delivery networks, such as DHL, Federal Express, UPS and TNT, and the privatised Dutch postal services. No doubt other countries' postal services are on the way.
  Although it has not proved possible to move forward with changes in this Parliament, the Government have never sought to conceal their view that a future change to some form of private sector status for major elements of Post Office business is essential to remove the public sector constraints that inhibit its prospects.
  The Opposition motion is completely misguided when it talks of the privatisation of the Post Office, as it ignores the fact that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in the
  400
  United Kingdom are already in the private sector. They are private businesses already. Far from being a threat, they are the backbone of the industry and the lifeblood of many small communities all over the country.
  The Government set out in the June 1994 Green Paper proposals for the changes that would enable the Post Office to meet the major challenges it will face over the next decade. Our preferred option was to move to joint ownership by the Government, the public and employees of Royal Mail and Parcelforce. Under that option, a retained Government share stake of 49 per cent. would maintain a close link between the Government and Royal Mail, safeguarding the interests of consumers in essential public services while giving the business the commercial freedom it needs to respond to increasing competition and to develop new services for the benefit of consumers.
  The Government concluded that the strength of the Post Office network lies in the existing public and private partnership which combines national provision for the size and activities of the network with local private sector provision for the delivery of services to customers.
  No change to the ownership or structure of Post Office Counters was therefore proposed. This option had the support of the Federation of Sub-Postmasters. I remind the House of what it said:
  "The Federation warmly welcomes and supports the majority of the Government's proposals for the Counters Business and we see them, together with the commitment to retain Benefits Agency work at Post Office counters as critical for the future of sub-post offices."
  In the absence of the necessary level of support in the House to proceed with legislation to advance our preferred option for Royal Mail and Parcelforce, the Government set out last May, in the statement by my predecessor and right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to which the right hon. Lady referred, a number of pragmatic changes in the financial regime of the Post Office which I shall address shortly.
  The Government remain of the view, however, that the proposals I have described for the Royal Mail and Parcelforce would be in the best interests of the Post Office and its customers. It is in that context that, in a recent television interview, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that consideration would be given to including proposals in our manifesto for the next election. This means no more and no less than it says.
  Whatever the Government decide in due course to propose in our manifesto, I emphasise once again that the Government have an absolute and non-negotiable commitment to a universal letter and parcel service with a delivery to every address in the United Kingdom within a uniform and affordable tariff structure and a nationwide network of post offices. That has been, and always will be, central to any proposal for change.
  Sir David Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion that the ability to service all addresses, including many in rural areas that cost the Post Office a great deal to reach, is best safeguarded by the continuation of an expanding and profitable Post Office business which in turn can best be achieved in the private sector?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has an extremely sound and valid point and I take serious account of it.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to detain the Secretary of State, but in view of his hon. Friend's intervention just

  401
  now I remind him that he seems to have overlooked the phrase in the evidence given by the Federation of Sub-Postmasters which states:
  "The Federation remains of the view that ownership should not be at the forefront of Government consideration, the key issue … being the need to improve the commercial prospects"
  of the network.
  Mr. Lang: The federation is involved with ownership of sub-post offices, 19,000 out of 20,000 of which are in the private sector already. That is the point the right hon. Lady seems unable to grasp.
  I have already referred to the threats and opportunities that face the Post Office, such as fax machines, electronic mail and the telephone. Real costs in these areas are falling fast, making them even more competitive. Changes are necessary to enable Royal Mail to respond to the challenges and opportunities it faces. It is increasingly clear that the present public sector approach is not flexible enough to allow the management to respond properly to the competitive pressures. The all-party Trade and Industry Committee's report of 1994 concluded that the various public sector constraints on the Post Office's activities were
  "having a detrimental impact on the Post Office's ability to act as a commercial organisation, to deliver an ever higher quality of service to its customers and to meet the challenges and opportunities of international competition."
  As has been demonstrated time and again, flexibility to meet and respond to the stimulus of competitive challenge and, indeed, the broadening of competition which follows privatisation bring valuable and tangible benefits to consumers and the businesses alike.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: A constituent of mine might tell me that the competitors to a future privatised Post Office will still be around and that the Post Office technology and innovation of the past decade will still be around, and ask what is the problem with the restrictions in the public sector. Why not let the Post Office do what it wants to, as it asked the Select Committee to be allowed to do but was refused by the Government?
  Mr. Lang: It is typical of the Labour party that its members see no disadvantage in allowing a subsidised public sector corporation to compete on an unfair basis with the private sector. Of course we shall consider expanding the activities of the Post Office, but not in ways that would displace the private sector and distort competition, thus damaging the interests of consumers.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the President give way?
  Mr. Lang: No.
  In his statement to the House last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out a number of changes relating to the financial control regime of the Post Office which sought to balance the realities of the Post Office's continuing public sector status with the need for commercial freedoms without undermining the Government's economic and competition responsibilities.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the right hon. Member
  402
  for Derby, South talking about the Labour party's commitment not to interfere in the commercial freedom of the Post Office? Was he aware that the deputy leader of the Labour party recently visited my constituency and said that a future Labour Government would intervene and decide on the location of individual post offices, which goes far beyond the powers that Post Office Counters currently has? Does not that show that the Labour party remains committed to intervention to a degree unknown before in peace time, and would willingly tear up legally binding contracts if that suited its purposes?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The Labour party says one thing and does another. It claims that it would give the Post Office commercial freedom—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is getting there slowly. The Opposition say they would give it freedom to borrow in the markets, and freedom to enter new markets. In doing so, they choose to ignore the constraints of the public sector. Do they seriously believe that a public sector Post Office can be permanently ring-fenced from the constraints and pressures on public expenditure? Perhaps the Labour party could explain exactly what commercial freedoms it would give the Post Office that it does not already have?
  My right hon. Friend has proposed a pragmatic and balanced package for the Post Office and the public, providing a responsible and coherent way forward which, as far as the very real constraints and financial disciplines of the public sector will allow, gives the Post Office greater flexibility and scope to extend its activities into adjacent markets.
  The May 1995 statement, in recognition of the importance of maintaining a viable network of post offices, confirmed the Government's commitment to offering the services of almost 20,000 post offices to a wider range of clients. Among the new services now available or being trialled at post offices are free payment of gas bills, sale of national lottery tickets and travel insurance and bureau de change services. These and other developments in the future should help to strengthen the network of post offices, not least in rural areas where they play such an important part in the life of local communities.
  The May statement also set out a number of changes to be introduced in the financial regime of the Post Office, including the external financing limit. Many of the changes have been implemented: earlier restrictions on capital expenditure have been abolished, a new corporate planning process is in place and we are open to proposals for new business from Post Office Counters and moves into adjacent market areas by Royal Mail in partnership with the private sector.
  I recognise, of course, the Post Office's disappointment that it has not yet been possible to make progress towards our aim of setting the EFL at about half the forecast post-tax profits, but the statement made it absolutely clear that no responsible Government could ring-fence the Post Office entirely from the pressures on public spending. We do, however, recognise the difficulties the Post Office faces in forecasting and financial planning to achieve precisely the EFL targets that it is set. We are, therefore introducing some additional flexibility in response to its request, and we shall in future allow it to match an over-achievement, by up to £30 million, of one year's EFL with a reduction in the following year's target.

  403
  The right hon. Lady has been quick to criticise this year's EFL settlement. Perhaps she would tell us, as she was asked to do, what she would have done. If she had taken a different approach, what cuts in spending would she have made instead? Or would the money have been raised through higher taxes? In reaching its decisions on the Budget requirements last autumn, the Government were faced by the need to strike a balance between the needs of publicly financed services such as health and education and those of a public corporation such as the Post Office.
  The Post Office EFLs must be seen in their proper context. The Post Office is a very successful and profitable business, but it is also a partially protected monopoly organisation, owned by the taxpayer, with an income of more than £15 million a day. In recent years, its capital investment has been running at well over £300 million a year—an historically high level and twice the rate in real terms of 15 years ago—and it should have scope to continue to invest both from its own financial resources and through private finance initiative projects. However, the Government's long-term aim is still to move towards setting the Post Office EFL at about half forecast post-tax profits.
  It is worth noting that, in the last five years of Labour government, the Post Office was allowed to undertake capital expenditure of £800 million at today's prices. Under the last five years of Conservative government, the Post Office has invested £1.7 billion—more than double in real terms the figure under Labour. That is an illustration of the fraudulence of claims that increases in Post Office EFLs in recent years have starved it of capital investment.
  It is for the Post Office in the first instance to present a specific proposal on the amount and timing of any tariff increase that it believes will be necessary. We shall study its proposal carefully, as will the Post Office Users National Council, which the Post Office is statutorily required to consult on tariff changes.
  The Post Office has undertaken to maintain the existing level of postal charges until at least 31 March this year. By then, it will have been almost two and a half years since the last letter tariff increase. Customers are currently enjoying the longest period of stability in stamp prices since the late 1960s, but with an enormous improvement in the quality of service in recent years. The last letter tariff increase was in November 1993, and stamp prices continue to fall in real terms. At the same time, service standards remain at very high levels. Nationally, some 92 per cent. of first-class mail is delivered the next day, and over 98 per cent. of second-class mail is delivered within three days. By international standards, British letter tariffs represent very good value for money in terms of cost and quality of service.
  I am aware of the concern—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Derby, South—in the direct marketing, printing, publishing and other industries that rely heavily on the mail service about the impact of an increase in letter tariffs. In the past 10 years, the volume of mail posted has increased by more than 40 per cent., with increases in each consecutive year. Recent evidence does not suggest, therefore, that a modest tariff increase has any significantly adverse effect on mail traffic—and I would point out that letter tariffs are currently lower in real terms than they were in 1979.
  404
  Today the right hon. Member for Derby, South has sought to claim that her party would give the Post Office more commercial freedom. Do she and her party support Crown conversions? If so, someone should have bothered to tell the deputy leader. On a recent visit to Glossop, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is reported in the Glossop Chronicle as saying that Labour's policy would be to stop Crown conversions—and, indeed, to reverse them in some cases. According to Labour, that is greater commercial freedom. Yet again, the Labour party says one thing and does another.
  There is not even any reason to intervene; no doubt that is what appeals to Labour. According to independent surveys commissioned by the Post Office, customer satisfaction levels are higher for converted offices than for Crown offices. Recent surveys of 42 franchise offices around the country also show that customers perceive significant improvements in service over the Crown offices that they replaced. The customer is happy, the Post Office is happy, but never let it be said that Labour lets reason overcome ideology.
  Of course, the reality is that Labour would never give the Post Office greater commercial freedom. Labour wants to intervene in the commercial decisions of the private sector, let alone those businesses unfortunate enough to be left stranded in the public sector should it ever win power again.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Why has there been a 33 per cent. increase in the industry's productivity over the past 10 years? Last year it made a profit of £472 million, an increase of £306 million on the previous year's figure. Why are the Government demanding £925 million, as against the £534 million demanded in previous years? They are bankrupting the Post Office.
  Mr. Lang: I welcome the improvements in efficiency made by the Post Office in recent years, which it has been able to make as a result of the benign and efficient Government who have been in charge of its affairs since 1979. However, it remains a publicly owned corporation in the public sector, which cannot be exempt from the rigours of public expenditure constraints from time to time.
  The real threat to the Post Office lies in tying it indefinitely into public sector constraints and scaremongering about privatisation. The real danger lies in the policies and postures of the Labour party. At the heart of the Government's policy are the three non-negotiable commitments to which we are pledged, and which the public rightly see as essential: a universal service for letters and parcels, a uniform tariff structure and a nationwide network of post offices.
  It is in everyone's interests to have an efficient and effective Post Office that can respond confidently and successfully to the many challenges it faces. We have said how we believe it should be achieved; all that the Opposition can do is whinge.
  7.54 pm
  Ms Judith Church: I am sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers, which assists me in the employment of my researcher and from which I receive no personal financial gain.

  405
  It is frustrating to have to return to the subject of the maiden speech that I made 18 months ago, in an attempt to dissuade the Government from their current foolish course. Moves to reopen the Post Office privatisation issue reveal the vacuum at the heart of their policy.
  Turning on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 7 January, I was amazed to hear the Prime Minister say— this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—
  "we will look again and see whether that is a subject for the next Parliament when we come to look at the manifesto."
  I can hardly believe that—after the climbdown of the former President of the Board of Trade, and the huge hole left in the Queen's Speech for this Session of Parliament, the Government are now scratching around for measures to put in their manifesto for the next election. I can hardly believe that they think for one moment that privatisation of the Post Office will be popular with the people. If the Government really believe that, and intend to put it in their manifesto—I note that the Secretary of State made no commitment in that regard—they are more out of touch with the views of the people than even I believed.
  The Government's approach to the issue of Post Office privatisation has been characterised throughout by ideological dogmatism, intellectual myopia and economic incompetence. Their approach underlines their failure to heed the democratic decisions of the House and the voice of the people. They persist in a sterile argument about ownership, while ignoring the substantive issues of efficiency and competitiveness that were dealt with today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South.
  The most remarkable aspect of the whole issue is the fact that the only impediment to the greater success of the Post Office is the Government. Over the past 10 years, the Post Office has contributed £1.25 billion to the Treasury; as my right hon. Friend said, over the next three years the Government intend it to contribute nearly £1 billion more. It is unbelievable that the Government should talk of profitability and enterprise in public, while doing their best to strangle one of the country's finest corporations—a public corporation with a proven track record of 19 successful years of subsidy-free profit.
  The recent radical increase in the negative external financing limit not only contradicts the Government's previous statements—as my right hon. Friend pointed out—but threatens to put the Post Office in the red for the first time in 20 years. If ever there was a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do," this is it.
  I suppose that we should not be surprised at the Government's continued duplicity following, as it does, the recent advice by the Deputy Prime Minister on late payment wheezes, the string of broken tax promises and the hypocrisy on crime figures. The Government have been a tragedy for Britain and they want to compound that tragedy by damaging our Post Office, which is such a vital part of this nation's life.
  In rural areas, the Post Office provides a valued focus for community life. That may not mean much to the Government, oblivious as they are to the fragmentation of communities after 17 years of their policies, but Labour understands the relevance and value of cohesive communities to the nation's overall economic success.
  406
  What the Government do not seem to understand is that the nation derives a social return from the present operation of the Post Office that could not be gained from a privatised entity concerned solely with private profitability. That aspect of public service, married with efficiency, represents the cornerstone of the Post Office's success and its popular support.
  Labour's alternative draws on a true belief in the ability of public enterprise to develop the vast potential of this successful British corporation. By removing the current capital expenditure limits, we shall allow the Post Office true freedom to plan for the future and invest to the optimum to meet its requirements. The Post Office will then have access to the scope and flexibility of options offered by the world's capital markets. Similarly, there must be a greater liberty from interference from the Department of Trade and Industry in proposed trading projects and a new freedom to enter joint ventures.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If the hon. Lady was running a private courier or parcel delivery company and found herself facing competition from a nationalised Post Office that was released from the constraints of the public sector and, therefore, able to invest capital, underwritten by the state, without risk, in businesses to undercut the hon. Lady's own business, would she regard that as fair competition, or would she go on taking advice from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
  Ms Church: It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman should enunciate such a view. It is clear that he has not read the Select Committee's report or followed the arguments put forward by the Post Office about greater commercial freedom and the sort of investments that it would wish to make. I advise him to do a lot more homework on the subject.
  The Post Office must be allowed to preserve its competitive edge and evolve efficiently in the rapidly globalising communications market. Otherwise, 10 years from now we could be faced with the failing corporation which, judging by the Government's actions, they seem to wish they had now.
  In responding to Labour's proposals for the Post Office, the Government usually justify their approach in two ways. We have heard those arguments in part today and I am sure that we shall hear more of them later in the debate.
  The first concerns the tyranny of an accounting convention and a political view that is so short-termist that it makes a goldfish seem attentive. The Government have been holding back investment in the Post Office on the ground that it would show up as an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. Debt is, of course, a serious problem and not to be taken lightly by any Labour Member, but surely even the Government can see that investment, from which will be derived a future income stream, is qualitatively different from spending, which has no direct revenue return.
  At the moment, we are in the crazy situation where all spending is regarded as bad regardless of the fact that the future income created would help to reduce debt. What is clearly needed is basic common sense, greater transparency and a more long-term approach to the Government's finances.

  407
  The other reason that the Government give for rejecting Labour's approach concerns the role of the state, to which the Secretary of State has already referred this evening. There are two related points—protecting taxpayers from private sector risk and protecting the private sector from the unfair competition of a state-backed company. Unfortunately, that view is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that a clear line can easily be drawn between state activity and private sector activity. It may well be that in the minds of the think tank-dwelling Conservatives that that is how the world works, but out in the real world which we know, things are quite different.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Church: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. If he listens to this point, it might help him with the issue that he raised earlier.
  The state already has massive responsibilities and obligations in the private sector. For example, if one of the main clearing banks was to suffer a financial catastrophe tomorrow, would the state sit idly by while it went broke? Certainly not. The Government would have to intervene and intervene heavily, unless the Minister is prepared categorically to assert that the Government would do nothing.
  What about Government bonds which finance the national debt? They are readily traded on the open market. But whose money is backing those bonds? Who else, but the taxpayer? What about black Wednesday, which all hon. Members well remember, when within hours the Government poured billions of pounds into defending a futile position? What was the ultimate source of that revenue? Once again, it was the taxpayer.
  Therefore, in terms of exposing taxpayers to commercial risks, we are already widely exposed and thoroughly intertwined in the workings of the private sector. The argument is spurious. The Government do not seem to realise that, but the public have now seen enough privatisations to recognise that the private and public sectors are properly linked in a sensible way in our economy.
  In that context, it is entirely right for the state to take part in profit-making activities if appropriate, as in the case of the Post Office. Given that so many of the Post Office's major competitors are also state owned or have substantial state involvement, what situation could be more appropriate? For instance, the Dutch post office has had a sales division operating in the United Kingdom since 1991. Similarly, the Canadians have allowed their post office to enter the private sector joint venture Global Delivery Express World-wide.
  Overall, we have a Government bereft of ideas, trapped in the past and ill equipped to deal with the future. In place of the stagnation and confusion that distinguish the Conservative approach, clarity of vision and a more precise analysis are required. Only new Labour, with its new approach and radical agenda, can deliver that.
  Greater commercial freedom would give the Post Office the opportunity that it deserves to evolve into a truly world-class corporation while retaining a clear social dimension in its operation. Under our plans, it would not be just a few fat cat executives who would benefit, but the whole nation, and that is the essential difference between new Labour and old Conservative.
  408
  The lottery of privatisations that has been delivered by the Government during their period in office is not a genuine lottery and the British people know it. We know who the winners and the losers will be. If the Government include the privatisation of the Post Office in their manifesto for the next general election, the British people will reject it overwhelmingly. I do not believe that so many turkeys on the Conservative Benches will vote for Christmas.
  8.8 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: I make it clear at the beginning that I am concerned with the Government's policy, and that is what concerns my constituents, my supporters and my former supporters. They are concerned about what the Government are doing about specific problems. I am not concerned about the Opposition, because I do not want them in power. What has reduced the public's esteem of the House is the fact that the two sides spend all their time throwing mud at each other. That is not what the people want. They want a thorough examination of the Government's policy and a thorough explanation from the Government of why they are carrying the policy through and what they think the results will be.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent the first half of his speech dealing with privatisation, and accused the Opposition of dogma. The real dogma lies in believing that privatisation can be extended to everything. The country realises that that cannot be substantiated. I agree with many of the tributes that he paid to the industries and firms that have been privatised. That is good. But that does not mean that privatisation can be stretched to every activity in the community. There are many activities for which a Government should take responsibility and organise and provide finance. That is the only safeguard for the community if a Government do that.
  Now we hear talk about the privatisation of prisons. I am strongly opposed to that. That is a facility in the community for which a Government must take responsibility. We have already seen some of the consequences of that particular action. It is said that the police can be privatised. I think that it is an absolute horror that it should even be mentioned as a possibility.
  One must accept that, in a large sphere, privatisation has been successful, but one cannot then go on to deduce that every activity should be privatised. When I say that I am concerned about the future of the Government, it is because the people do not believe that everything can be privatised—the Post Office, for example. I am against what is proposed because my constituents are against it, and I want to be re-elected. I want a Conservative Government again. There is no doubt that my constituents are against it. The Secretary of State admitted that the people are against it. The Government should recognise and respect that. Why are people against it? Because for them the Post Office is something more than just an activity.
  I do not represent an agricultural area, so I do not have the acute anxieties that hon. Members who represent agricultural areas must have, but I have a dormitory constituency in which sub-post offices are not just a service that is dished out, as people at the top think, but a way of life. It means much more to people in their

  409
  activities than just using stamps, drawing pensions and so on. I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that. The people are against privatisation. Let our Government recognise that and accept that we have to win the next election. I am talking quite brutally about votes. I want votes. What is wrong in saying that? I know when my constituents are against a particular item and when I shall not get their support if my Government insist on going on with such items.
  I can support the Government's amendment, because the last phrase is so worded that I can read into it that the Government intend to do nothing. That is satisfactory. If my right hon. Friend feels that he can come along after the next election, if he is re-elected, and say that the Government promise to think the whole thing over, well and good. We could then have another vote and another debate.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes a very moving appeal that we should listen to public opinion. I presume therefore that he agrees that we should listen to public opinion that tells us that 60 per cent. of people are opposed to a single European currency, so we should abide by it.
  Sir Edward Heath: My constituents will support a single European currency. [Laughter.] There is no point in my hon. Friend laughing and being so arrogant as to think that he knows what my constituents will do. Of course he does not. What is more, 82 per cent. of British industry wants a single currency, and we shall get a single currency. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Why are people so opposed to the privatisation of the Post Office, apart from the fact that it is part of their way of life? The Secretary of State said that 49 per cent. of it will not go into private hands. What do my people say about that? They say that with 49 per cent., the Government cannot control anything. Whoever gets it will do whatever they like. We have seen what has happened to 49 per cent. holdings in the past. After a period, they just disappear. Look at what happened to BP, where we always had a 51 per cent. holding, to ensure that BP did what we believed was in the national interest. Then it was reduced to 49 per cent., and then it was wiped out. People know that, and the plain fact is that they do not trust anybody who says, "If it is completely privatised, it will carry on."
  Great emphasis has been placed on the 19,000 post offices, but how many will remain? I use a sub-post office, outside Cathedral close in Salisbury. My constituents use them. What undertaking is there that we shall have them? None whatever. That is why people are so strongly opposed to any complete privatisation that goes ahead in the way that has been discussed. I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that fact. I shall certainly tell my constituents, because I get many letters on the subject, that I am absolutely opposed to privatisation. They know that already, and I shall do my utmost to stop it. We have too many privatisations at the moment, and they are all on the basis of the same dogma. People want to keep the Royal Mail.
  Many people think that one can just sell off the royal yacht because it does not matter. They are completely wrong. People say that if we are to have a monarchy,
  410
  it must be treated appropriately. The royal yacht has stood this country in good stead, with royal visits all over the world. Why throw it away?
  Look at Greenwich, which is one of our great glories. The Government say, "Away with it." The Secretary of State for National Heritage sent me an advertisement to take Greenwich, if I wanted to, on a 100-year lease or whatever. The advertisement was of the most vulgar kind, to which the lowest estate agent would not put his name. Why must that happen?
  We now read that the royal train will be run by an American company. I am not opposed to American railways, but I believe that our royal train should be run by this country whether it is private or nationalised. People feel that things which are in our own interest and which are of historical importance, such as Greenwich, the royal yacht, the royal train and other items, should not be thrown away in the haphazard way that they currently are.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend can influence the Government, so that we British can be proud of the things that are our heritage. That is completely different from spending our time attacking our allies and neighbours for what, allegedly, they are doing, because that is xenophobic, but we can rightly take a pride in the things that are of great historic importance. If we do that, the people will begin to trust us much more and will support us more in the other difficult things that from time to time we have to do.
  I shall read the last phrase of the Government's amendment to my own satisfaction—if not that of my right hon. Friend—so that it means that the Government will do nothing beyond what has already been done. My constituents can rest assured that they will have the way of life that they are used to and I shall know that I can continue to use my little place outside Cathedral close. What is more, my constituents may then return their support to us as a party and a Government. I am not ashamed to say that that is what I want and that it is what we have to work for. I wish that the Government would take the same view.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: This is a welcome opportunity to discuss in the House the future of the Post Office, because in his television interview the Prime Minister chose once again to throw into uncertainty the whole issue of the future of the Post Office. There is no doubt that the people of this country feel strongly about it. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), because he made two valid points. His account of where public opinion lies on the issue was entirely right. There can be no doubt about that whatever. His second point, that there had been successful privatisations in some industries but that that does not prove that one would enjoy success by privatising every part of public service, is also right.
  By suggesting yet again that the Post Office is a suitable candidate for privatisation, the real risk exists of undermining what is undoubtedly a genuine British success story. The Post Office needs to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive market, but it is being hampered from doing that by the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister's latest outpouring.
  The same thing has happened to the railways industry, where the Government took far too long to decide what they wanted to do. As a result of an appalling hiatus that

  411
  lasted several years, the country's train-building industry has collapsed. If we have a rail renaissance, we shall have to go to France and Sweden to buy our trains. The Government are creating in the Post Office the same degree of uncertainty that affected the railway industry, and they are inflicting the same damage.
  When I hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yet again tell the House that it remains the Government's policy and preference to privatise the Post Office, but that they are not doing so because there is inadequate parliamentary support for it, I am forced to conclude that the Government are in office but not in power. If they are unable get such a policy through the House, they should think again and come up with another policy.
  Some time ago, in their Green Paper, the Government proposed three alternatives: to privatise, to give commercial freedom within the public sector, or to split the business up. If they are unable to press ahead with privatisation—and I hope that they have rejected the option of splitting up the business—they should try to give some meaning to the commercial freedom option. I thought that some modest progress was being made in that regard. When the former President of the Board of Trade told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there would be an attempt to keep the negative external financing limit at about half the projected pre-tax profit, that seemed to give the Post Office at least some basis on which to plan its business. There has, however, been the most appalling reneging on that commitment.
  Let us be clear about privatisation's principal problems. The Post Office has already been split into three operating businesses: Post Office Counters, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce. If the Royal Mail, by far the most profitable of those three parts, is to be privatised, there are two obvious consequences. First, the cross-subsidisation option, which is not currently being used, would go indefinitely. I represent a constituency with many small rural sub-post offices. I talk to the people who run them and respect their role in small village communities—a far broader role than simply running a business. Such businesses are a focal point for the community.
  I talk to the people who are struggling to run those small businesses. They are inadequately rewarded and remunerated for the service that they provide. The salaries, if one dares to use that word to describe the payments that they receive from the Post Office, are pathetic and insulting. When the Government take away those vast sums of money, which could sensibly have been used to ensure that small rural post offices were more viable, we will think that whole world has gone completely mad.
  If the Royal Mail is to be taken out of the equation and its profit may no longer be used for cross-subsidisation, only one sensible conclusion can be drawn: the future of the rural sub-post office network is in doubt and in danger. That is the first principal objection. If the Royal Mail were taken out of the equation, the option of using the considerable revenues that it earns to improve and to build for the future of the rural sub-post office network— and of urban post offices, which also play an important role—would be gone.
  Secondly, let us consider what a privatised Royal Mail would be like and what it would choose to do. In representing my constituents, I look to the example of
  412
  what has happened in the gas, electricity and water industries, to name but three. In all cases, new private operators are, sensibly and properly, beginning to develop cost and charging bases that reflect the true economic cost of doing things. That is a fact. I represent a rural constituency. Providing services in scattered rural areas is much more expensive than providing them in densely populated, urban areas. If the costs of all public services are to start reflecting that, the rural way of life will be undermined.
  If the privatised Royal Mail is to continue to be under a Government obligation or regulation saying that it must be willing to deliver a letter from Penzance to the northern reaches of Scotland for the same price as it will deliver a letter from one London street to the next, what on earth is the point of privatising the Royal Mail? What great philosophical leap forward will be achieved if they tell Royal Mail what to charge, to whom to charge it and what the conditions of service will be? If we really cast the Royal Mail free and allow it to do what it pleases, my constituents will suffer. If we do not, but leave it heavily regulated and tell it exactly how to run its business, what to charge and how to do it, what is the point of privatising it?
  If we allow the Royal Mail to go its own way and the competitors that we hear about start cherry-picking— to quote an expression that has been used in debates on privatisation—the more profitable business in the towns, then the viability of the business that is left will be reduced as a consequence. Perhaps the Government intend to offer certain routes, accompanied by certain amounts of subsidy. After all, that is the way in which they have chosen to approach rail privatisation. It seems that anything is possible in the ideological quest to privatise.
  The Secretary of State properly made the point that Post Office Counters is largely in private hands already. In the past seven years, more than half of directly operated main post offices have been turned into franchises. In addition, about 20,000 sub-post offices are private businesses. As I have described, many of them struggle against considerable odds just to keep going and to provide the useful and broad service that I have spoken about.
  The Prime Minister should be aware that his Back Benchers representing rural areas—certainly those representing Devon and Cornwall constituencies—are acutely aware of that as well. That is why some of them have been unwilling to support the ridiculous suggestion that the Royal Mail should be privatised. They understand only too clearly the damage that they will do in their constituencies and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly said, to their vote on polling day.
  That is not to say that the Post Office should be left exactly as it is. As we have been told, competition at home and abroad is growing. To counteract that, to respond to it effectively and to try and beat the competition, the Post Office needs commercial freedom and access to capital to make decisions and to get on with competing. We want the Post Office to develop into new sectors of business. It would make sense to allow it to join the private sector in joint ventures. That would improve the quality of service that customers receive and ensure that costs are kept low. It could help to turn a national success story into an international success story.
  I understand the fact that Conservative Members, in some cases, would prefer, for ideological reasons, to go down the privatisation route. They are entitled to that

  413
  view, but when they say to Opposition Members that it is impossible to grant commercial freedom in the public sector, they are simply wrong. Examples exist in other industries in this country and abroad of post offices and many other enterprises proceeding on that basis. It may not be Conservative Members' preferred choice. I accept and respect that, but it is wrong and phoney to say that it cannot be done. It is done successfully in other industries and in other countries.
  It is imperative that we ease the financial constraints that have been imposed. It is outrageous for the Government to seek to purloin such revenue from the Post Office. It has made great strides forward and achieved great things in terms of its productivity yet, since 1981, it has contributed £1.250 million to Government coffers. Now the Exchequer is looking for the best part of another £1 billion in the next three years.
  As has already been said, if we add together the negative financing limit and the corporation tax that will have to be paid, the sums that the Government are looking for are greater than the current profit.
  Ms Church: Extortion.
  Mr. Harvey: By any reckoning, that is totally ludicrous.
  What sort of business anywhere, in any sector, in any country can expect the Government to take away from it at the end of a highly successful trading period a sum greater than the profit that it has made? That is utterly nonsensical, the desperate move of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in a tight financial corner and has decided to turn on the Post Office and raid its coffers.
  Mr. Jenkin: Of course the money that the Government plan to raise from the Post Office will be incorporated into their financial plan. Can we take it that the Liberal Democrats, who are famous for wanting to increase income tax, will apply that increase not to education, as they promised, but to replacing the revenue lost from the Post Office?
  Ms Church: Is that a tax?
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is indeed, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) says, a tax. The Government are imposing on the Post Office such huge costs that it will have to levy more costs on the taxpayer, in the form of more expensive postage stamps. The whole gamut of its business will be there, and it will have to charge more. The hon. Gentleman's point—
  Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
  Mr. Harvey: I am still replying to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). If his argument is that we are trying to save the taxpayer from a great burden, he must realise that there are alternative ways in which to do that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): If the money is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a tax, with what would his party replace that funding?
  Mr. Harvey: One draws up a budget for the entire year, and the Government have chosen to draw it up on that
  414
  basis. Most of the money will constitute a tax that falls on business, but the other element, which falls on individuals, could hardly be less progressive. One could hardly turn one's mind to any form of taxation that could be deemed more unfair, or to penalise vulnerable people more. I can think of any number of ways in which a Government might chose to increase revenue, almost any of which would be preferable to the one that the Government have chosen.
  On commercial freedom, how can the Government justify—
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harvey: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  How can the Government agree to the BBC's participating in just such joint ventures—in the past they have also allowed various parts of the nuclear industry to do so—yet for some reason find it total anathema to consider allowing the Post Office to do the same? Moreover, there is one crucial difference between the BBC and the Post Office—the Post Office is turning in a huge profit, which the Government are raiding for the sake of easing their predicament over the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The threat of Post Office privatisation is real. The word "threat" is appropriate because by taking the profitable business away and so preventing cross-subsidy, the Government will put the rural sub-post office network under threat, and by allowing private operators to drive a coach and horses through the principles that have guided our Royal Mail network ever since its inception, they will threaten the universal mail coverage service.
  Changes must be made to the way in which the Post Office operates, but the way forward must be through greater commercial freedom within the public sector, not through privatisation. Splitting and privatising the different parts of the network would be unprecedented. Any such move would be to the detriment of customers, and the sooner the Prime Minister abandons that foolish idea, the better for the Post Office and its customers.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: May I comment briefly on the speech by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) before he leaves the Chamber? He made a most interesting point, with which I agree—that the public are concerned, and probably oppose Post Office privatisation. There is no doubt about that.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman recognises that many of our privatisations have been successful over the years, although the public opposed every one of them beforehand, and while they were going through. The public are naturally concerned about change. However, the fact that the public are concerned does not mean that we should immobilise our policy. We have to consider the economic reality.
  This is an example of an issue in which political sentiment flies in the face of commercial reality. The Post Office is a commercial organisation. We simply cannot give it the commercial freedom that it needs if we retain it in the public sector. The right hon. Member for Derby,

  415
  South (Mrs. Beckett) asked me a fair question—whether I approved of the Government's using the Post Office as a milch cow. I am not a Member of the Government, so I have a certain freedom in what I can say in the Chamber. I do not approve of the Government's doing that, but I do not believe that we could expect better from any other Government. We certainly did not expect better from Labour Governments in the past, nor could we do so in the future.
  Ms Church: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I shall give way later, but first I want to develop my argument.
  One of the most interesting features of the debate was that when I asked the simple question whether the right hon. Lady would limit the external financing limit to halve the profits of the Post Office, she could not answer. Of course she could not. We well know that a Labour Government, like any other Government, will be strapped for cash, and will use the Post Office as a milch cow so long as it remains in the public sector.
  I am sorry to say that the speech by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), was utterly illogical. Would he really increase income tax to cut the price of a stamp? That seemed to be what he was suggesting.
  Mr. Harvey: May I ask the hon. Gentleman exactly the same question? He has told us that he does not approve of the Government's using the Post Office as a milch cow. Can I ask him what the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) asked me? How would he replace the revenue? Is he not arguing against his own case?
  Mr. Leigh: I am delighted, because the hon. Gentleman has led with his chin and made precisely the point that I was about to make. I would privatise the Post Office. We should not be running it. That is the simple answer; that is the commercial reality. It is nonsense to suggest that what the hon. Gentleman says can apply to a successful commercial organisation. The Post Office is becoming more and more commercial. Even its brochures say things such as:
  "European postal administrations are now able to operate much more commercially and are making the most of their new status. Success in the future will go to those communications companies who can operate globally".
  The whole tenor of that is not that the Post Office is a public service, but that it is a highly commercial company operating in the real business world.
  The Post Office makes huge profits because it has a monopoly. It delivers the 67 million letters every working day that its propaganda tells us about—and good luck to it.
  Ms Church rose—
  Mr. Leigh: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I want to answer the question first.
  The Post Office is a commercial organisation, and it will make huge profits because it is a monopoly. It can hardly fail to do so. So long as it makes profits the Government, rightly, will view it as an alternative means of taxation. That is the real world in which we live, and there is no point in denying it.
  416
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North made a good point about that. I have received a communication from DHL (UK) International Ltd., a successful private company that deals with parcels. Talking about VAT, the document rightly says:
  "Many of the premium services currently offered by the Post Office are in direct competition with the express distribution industry and yet are still classed as VAT exempt, while DHL has to charge VAT. Consequently, DHL is prejudiced in its ability to compete on price with the Post Office".
  One could mention 101 other examples, if one wanted to. My hon. Friend and others asked the question strongly: is it fair for a company wholly owned by the public sector and entirely buttressed by it, with a monopoly, to compete unfairly with the private sector because it has full commercial freedom and can do whatever it likes?
  Ms Church: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to inform us what proportion of DHL's profits are paid into the public purse, in contrast to the percentage of Post Office profits that are currently bailing out the Treasury from its economic mess.
  Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but that is not the point that I was making. DHL pays corporation tax, like any other business. If we privatised the Post Office it would pay corporation tax. It would be a highly successful company and would yield at least £2 billion or £3 billion on privatisation, which could be used to build hospitals or whatever we liked. It would be able to operate globally in the world marketplace, pay its corporation tax and do all that it could possibly want. But it would not be competing unfairly with the private sector—nor would it be held back.
  Those of us who try to run the Post Office in the public sector, as I have done, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now doing, have found that one of the main problems involved is that the postmasters, about whom we have heard so much, keep coming to us and saying, "We can't compete. Give us more power."
  The Treasury is right to say to Department of Trade and Industry officials that the Post Office cannot be given more powers because it is in the public sector and unfair competition would result. I understand the Treasury's arguments. We are therefore considering a decline in business. As long as the Post Office is kept in the public sector, regardless of who is in control in this House, the Treasury will prevent sub-post offices and post offices from competing unfairly with the private sector. That is the economic reality that we face.
  The only way to solve the problem is to push the Post Office out into the private sector and allow it to deliver the kind of service that it wants. The Royal Mail would be allowed to become a modern communications company, break into the new electronic age and compete on a level playing field with other companies. Post Office Counters would be able to compete, and build itself up by establishing local financial centres in towns and villages where it could deliver the services that it liked. As long as the Post Office is shackled to the public sector it will be used as a milch cow and will not grow.
  We face a political problem, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly underlined. [Laughter.] There is no point in Opposition Members

  417
  laughing. There is a political problem; people are worried about change. As we well know, there is no overwhelming public demand for the Post Office to be privatised, any more than there was for any industry to be privatised. The Government must therefore think of ways in which to achieve Post Office privatisation.
  One of the ways in which the Post Office could be privatised—I do not know why the Government have not done it during the past couple of years—is to make it a public limited company before the general election, selling, say, 15 per cent. of the shares to the work force, 15 per cent. to the general public, 15 per cent. to city institutions and retaining about 55 per cent. in Government control.
  I have no doubt that such a measure could have got through Parliament. Although some Conservative Members are—apparently—opposed to Post Office privatisation, I would have thought that every sensible person would allow it to become a public limited company despite the fact that there is not a majority in the House in favour of it becoming a plc and 51 per cent. of it being owned by the private sector. We could have at least moved down that road. That would have been a sensible halfway step. In our next manifesto we should promise that we will sell 51 per cent. of the shares.
  When the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I tried to persuade him to put the proposal in our previous manifesto, but it was early days and I did not succeed. If there had been a line in our previous manifesto stating that we were to privatise the Post Office, I doubt that it would have lost us a single vote. I do not think that when the public vote—whether they vote Conservative or Labour—they are really concerned about items in a manifesto that state that the Government are or are not planning to privatise the Post Office, as long as the policy is explained. We could have done it, we should have done it and we will have to do it in the end because we certainly cannot leave things as they are for the reasons that I have given.
  Whatever the hon. Member for North Devon says, the Post Office is very different from the BBC. There is no point in comparing them and saying that the BBC is owned in the public sector but has full commercial freedom. It is a completely different organisation. The Post Office is a modern, commercial company. There is nothing very romantic about delivering pieces of paper around the country. The overwhelming volume of that paper comprises not letters from old grannies to their nephews, but correspondence from business to business and business to people. It is virtually an entirely straight commercial operation. Apart from political sensitivity, there is absolutely no reason why that business should not be privatised tomorrow.
  Plans to privatise the Post Office should be put in our manifesto and carried out. Indeed, I predict that we will put it in our manifesto, that privatisation will be carried out sooner or later, and that it will produce an exciting new future for the company. The Post Office will become one of the great British success stories. It will carve out markets all over the world. I also predict that across the countryside, successful local post offices will deliver financial services and have an assured future. It should happen, and it will.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to put on record that I am sponsored by the Communication Workers Union. Its money—the amount is in the Register of Members' Interests and has been since the day I was sponsored—goes to run services in my constituency party and does not come to me in any way or form. I make no financial gain from it.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is registered as being a political adviser to an insurance company. There is a slight difference between being a political advisor to an insurance company that is directly commercial and being a Member of Parliament whose constituency party is sponsored by a trade union. Hopefully, Conservative Members will one day realise that and that we are not bought and sold by the money that a trade union gives us. I would say everything that I am about to say regardless of whether I was sponsored by any trade union.
  I shall not follow the high level of analysis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) or the high finances adequately covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church). I was surprised at the approach of the President of the Board of Trade. The Prime Minister put his foot in his mouth during the interview with David Frost and tripped up his hon. Friends by letting slip some little secret idea to win over the right wing of his party and thereby keep himself in office. Perhaps it was a thank you for what happened in the 1922 Committee a week or so ago. I do not think that the idea had been thought through. It was quite clear that the Secretary of State, whom I have known for a long time through his work as Secretary of State for Scotland, was not up to his brief. He made several substantial errors.
  The President of the Board of Trade said that Post Office privatisation was being considered, as the Prime Minister had said. That is as far as it goes. The President of the Board of trade revealed in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) that he, personally, was a privatiser. That was interesting: he put himself on the line. Perhaps he, too, is looking for right-wing support. If he is a privatiser, he had better not go looking for the support of people in Galloway, because he will be out on his ear— and any Member representing a Scottish constituency who tries to support Post Office privatisation will join him.
  In reply to another intervention, the President of the Board of Trade said that the Post Office was a subsidised industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham pointed out that for the past 19 years the Post Office has not only been a subsidy-free service to the public—it has been much more. I should like to put a simple lesson in economics on the record so that the right hon. Gentleman can read it later. If a private company borrows money, invests it, makes a profit and pay backs the money that it has borrowed, it is not subsidised. That is called making a profit.
  Of course the President of the Board of Trade is not supposed to know about such things because he is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at last beginning to make salutary comments about his party's policies in the run-up to the 1992 election and how they are costing him a great deal of money and preventing him from balancing his Budget. I believe he said that the blame for £28 billion of public sector borrowing requirement lay clearly at the feet of the Prime Minister.

  419
  The previous President of the Board of Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister, is responsible for all the comments that have been quoted. He said in response to the Select Committee report that the Government would try to reduce the Post Office public sector take to 50 per cent, through its external financing limit. Now the Government are talking about reducing the take by £925 million over the next three years, which is almost 66 per cent. of profits. The Post Office has said that that leaves it nothing for investment and for all the initiatives that the Government tell us they will allow it to introduce.
  The bottom line, which everybody will realise from what has been said tonight, is that postal charges are going up to pay for the Government's failures. As the President of the Board of Trade said, the Post Office cannot escape the difficulties of public sector finances. The Post Office does not have a problem with public sector finances. It is the Government who have a problem with public sector finances, and their failures will now be paid for by everyone who licks a stamp and sticks it on a letter.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Connarty: I give way to the hon. Member for Legal and General.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should look at the history of privatisation. If he does, he will see that prices have tended to fall after privatisation. The only reason why stamp prices are having to rise is that the Post Office remains in the private-public sector. If we privatised it, it would increase its efficiency, profitability and competitiveness, and there is no doubt that it would cut prices. Indeed, because of its monopoly position, there is no doubt that the Government would want to privatise the Post Office with a K-minus formula to ensure that it did cut prices.
  Mr. Connarty: I shall return to the economics of delivering post, which is very important. I hope that Conservative Members will listen because the comments will not be mine, but those of Professor Baumol. He spoke about what he called handicraft industries, or those delivered by a human being at the point of consumption. These include the delivery of letters, and also the health service and education. The quality of the service is important, and not just the speed or cheapness of the service.
  I am always amazed to hear Tory Members talk about privatisations as if they were universally successful. They may be successful for the person who gets shares, and particularly successful for those fat cat executives who receive shares at their original price and then take them up later under their share option schemes. We have been disgusted, as I hope the Tories have been—although it may be just jealousy from Tory Members—at the profit rake-offs by the so-called inadequate former executives of public sector industries. Suddenly, these people have become super-whizzkids and are worth a £1 million backhander.
  The person who was in charge of the Post Office has run off to the private sector because the executive jets and money that he thought he would get following the privatisation that he was pushing for with the former President of the Board of Trade did not come off. He has had to go and earn his crust somewhere else.
  420
  I do not think that all privatisations have been successful. Hon Members should look at the shambles of British Gas. It is all very well for the Tories to talk about prices, but we should look at the structure of the business. A loss of £1.5 billion is pending, and the domestic side of the company has been split off into a company called BG Energy, with £2.6 billion assets. Meanwhile, TransCo and all the profitable overseas sectors have been hived off. The consumer will pay for those losses.
  In every case in the water industry, the consumer— because of the monopoly—will end up paying in the long run. Investment has not gone into the water industry, and someone will have to pay for it. That someone will be the consumer. We will have to look at industries in the longer term before we can say that privatisation has been universally successful.
  Let us look at the past attempts to privatise. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked of a fantasy world where not a single vote would have been lost had the Tories privatised the Post Office before the election. I do not know what world the hon. Gentleman is living in. There were 16,000 submissions received against the proposal, while only 60 were in favour. Lo and behold, the majority of those 60 were speculators, bankers and investment companies who could sniff the profits that they could make from another rip-off of a public sector service. That is the reality.
  Mr. Leigh: Did the Conservative party lose the 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections after we had privatised 57 industries?
  Mr. Connarty: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who sat so close to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), did not listen to what the Father of the House said. He said that his constituents did not want the Post Office to be privatised, and that is the reality in most constituencies around the country. The hon. Gentleman shows an absolute contempt—which unfortunately runs through his Back-Bench colleagues— for the people who put him here.
  If Conservative Members do not listen, they do not deserve to be here. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government can get away with sticking people's noses in it, he deserves to go, as does every hon. Member who agrees with him. One day, people will not vote on the basis of slavish adherence to their party, and hon. Members will lose their seats on the basis of their contempt for people's wishes. That democratic deficit will be righted at the next general election. That is why 55 Tory Members are running for cover, including Front-Bench Members such as the Minister for Energy who has tried to explain the gas fiasco. They are running away because they know that the people are coming to get rid of them.
  Let us look at some of the remarks made in previous debates on the privatisation, one of which was repeated tonight by the President of the Board of Trade. He said that this wonderful Government would not harm the sub-post offices network, which would not be challenged in the private sector. But let us look at the agenda that is beneath that comment, which was raised at the time and continues to be pushed.
  The Government want to save money by the use of electronic transfer payments from the social security budget, and the way in which they intend to save money

  421
  is very simple. One does not receive as much for a transfer payment by electronic means as one does for payments made over the counter, as they are at present. Something like 50 per cent. of the income of most sub-post offices comes from Government transfer payments for social security. Even with that income, there was embarrassment in the Prime Minister's constituency when the local post office had to shut down right in the middle of the last privatisation débâcle because it could not make ends meet. There were not enough people getting transfer payments through that post office.
  If the Government increase the use of electronic transfer, they will cut the incomes of sub-post offices to such a level that sub-post offices throughout this country may have to close. These sub-post offices are marginal economic institutions at the moment. Alternatively, the sub-post offices will have to put up the prices of basic food and goods that people in small villages and communities need. Those sub-post offices are not just in villages and communities, however, but in the housing schemes of Paisley, Glasgow and the larger towns of Britain.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the effect of privatisation on sub-post offices and about the role that they play in the community. Does he agree that those sub-post offices are the only contact for many elderly and disabled people with the wider community, and nowhere more so than the constituency of the President of the Board of Trade—Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, which is a collection of small villages?
  Mr. Connarty: That point is very well made. The public will certainly be coming for the President of the Board of Trade, not to wish him well in his defence of privatisation, but to wish him out of their lives. They will bring in someone else who represents their views. It is interesting that this is another example of Conservatives saying one thing and doing another. What the previous President of the Board of Trade said about privatisation rings as false as when he used to tell his creditors that the cheque was in the post.
  Reference was also made to previous debates about Crown office closures. Crown post offices are very important to people in towns, and it is not just a question of their symbolism as large buildings. For many people, the Crown office is the most convenient place to do their business. There is no doubt that the number of campaigns against the closure of Crown offices up and down the country were not spurred on by counter staff or by the CWU membership. I have been in cities—some of which are represented by Conservative Members—where petitions of 12,000 people were collected to try to stop the closure of a Crown post office because those people saw it as the most convenient place to do their business.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: On the subject of Crown post offices, is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal made by Post Office Counters Ltd. to close Cambuslang Crown post office and make it into an agency post office, despite community protests? That Crown post office operates from premises leased to it by Lanarkshire county council for 999 years as long as it is used for
  422
  community purposes. Post Office Counters intends to sell that building for £250,000. That is an example of the drive to turn money over to the Government through this semi-privatisation. The money will go straight into the Government's pocket.
  Mr. Connarty: The point is well made. That example in Cambuslang is repeated throughout the length of breadth of Britain. It is interesting to consider the numbers. There were 1,500 Crown offices in 1989 and there are now only 700.
  It is not just Labour Members who oppose the closure of Crown offices. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), no less, oppose the closure of Crown post offices in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Basildon is the original Essex man. One would probably call him the temporary Member for Basildon because, like many others, he is on his way out. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) also opposes the closure of Crown post offices.
  There has been a report about what happens when Crown post offices are lost and replaced with franchise offices. The latest document which has been leaked to Members of Parliament shows that franchise offices make four times as many errors as Crown offices. I have a simple piece of advice for my Front-Bench team. I do not make policy, but I am not afraid to give advice. We should commit ourselves to cease Crown office closures immediately we come to office, before we do anything else, and then conduct a nationwide review of the network of post offices. I believe that we would find serious deficiencies.
  Some post offices have gone into the backs of shops. Conservative Members do not seem to be concerned about people who have a marginal income going to collect it by transfer payment at the back of a supermarket, perhaps with a couple of kids, and then coming out and buying things that they did not intend to buy, are not in the family budget and they do not and cannot normally afford. That is the pattern that is beginning to emerge. People are not spending in a planned way because many other things are demanded of them. Conservative Members should take heed of that.
  We are not talking just about whether something makes sense commercially and whether people make a profit. We are talking about whether it makes sense socially. Does it make sense for the type of fabric of society, not just the type of commercial enterprise that we want to see? That is the difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members. We believe that we should be concerned about the social results of the things that we do, not just the results in terms of profit and share price. We care for the many. They care for the few, and everyone knows it. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to finish.
  Mr. Connarty: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be on my feet for a few minutes yet.
  Stamp charges are likely to rise. The increase in postage will damage some of the commercial interests that Conservative Members wish to see developed for post

  423
  offices. We are told that the post offices are successful and have operated for 19 years without subsidy. We have been told about all their achievements.
  The Mail Order Traders Association, the Direct Marketing Association, the Mail Users Association and the Periodical Publishers Association have taken out an advert in The House Magazine. I hope that Conservative Members will take the trouble to read it. In case they do not, I will read some of it into Hansard for their benefit. It says:
  "Direct mail alone generates £13 billion worth of business: Substantial economic decline"—
  if postal stamp charges rise. It says that
  "Over 50,000 jobs depend on the Mailing Industry: 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of jobs could go"—
  if postal stamp charges rise. It says that
  "Most advertisers plan to increase print budgets: Substantial switch to electronic media"—
  to save on stamp charges, if they rise. It says that there has been a
  "60 per cent. growth in Direct Mail over 5 years: Lost opportunity for an expanding industry"—
  if postal stamp charges rise. It refers to
  "Financial Mail, the largest single sector: Severely damaged"—
  if postal stamp charges rise—and a
  "30 per cent. growth in magazine subscriptions over 5 years".
  The President of the Board of Trade tells us that, despite the increase in charges, everything has grown, but the associations say that they are likely to become unprofitable if they have to pay the extra stamp charges on mail. The advert says simply, "Say no to postage price increases." That advert was paid for by the mail users associations.
  Let Conservative Members listen to someone if they will not listen to us.
  Another thing that is happening in Royal Mail is that delivery time agreements are being eroded. The Department of Trade and Industry has been behind encouraging that, just as it was behind setting targets for the closure of Crown post offices—as was revealed by a leaked memo during the last campaign.
  The standard is supposed to be that all first-class mail is delivered by 9.30 am. The pressure is on to earn the money that will be taken away in the external financing limit by pushing postmen out with more and more mail in their sack. That will mean that people will sometimes not receive their first delivery of mail until 11 am, with a peripheral delivery of the last bits of mail after that time.
  In London, there is an agreement that 60 per cent. of the mail goes out in the first delivery and 40 per cent. goes out in the second. In Scotland recently there was an industrial dispute caused by the actions of the management in trying to impose new rotas, under which 90 or 80 per cent. of the mail went out in the first delivery. We find people making deliveries at 11 o'clock. When we ask whether it is their first or second delivery, they say that it is their first delivery. It is the first delivery. The Government have a responsibility, before they talk about privatisation, to make sure that consumers get the standard of service that they thought that the Government were guaranteeing them through regulation.
  Finally, I come to Professor Baumol's analysis of handicraft industries. I was an economics student when he was considered to be extremely right wing in the
  424
  economic world. He recently gave a lecture on the health service but referred to other industries that come into the same category—industries delivered by the hand of a human being at the point of consumption. He named mail delivery as one of those and said that, as with health, we cannot get productivity by cutting the number of bodies doing the job. That leads to a loss of quality, not better productivity. There is a difference. The Government's pressure will bring about a loss of quality. It has already been said by the new chief executive of the Post Office that the stupid remark of the Prime Minister—I do not think that the Prime Minister had thought about it before opening his mouth, and forgot to put his brain in gear— has caused a great deal of concern in the industry and problems for its investment in the future.
  I do not disparage the image suggested by the Prime Minister of a Britain with warm beer and cricket on the lawn. I prefer a good, cold pint of lager and a game of rugby, as do most Scots—especially when we play England, as we will in a few weeks' time. I predict that another victory is on the way.
  The Government and Conservative Members should not diminish what is left of their reputation. They should back off and not put this in their manifesto. I say that for their sake and for the sake of the people, who want a public sector Post Office with commercial freedom, not a privatised Post Office fighting in the market and sacrificing its customers for the sake of its boardroom.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: The motion invites the House to accept that privatisation would threaten the continued success of the Post Office and place individual post offices in jeopardy. It is not a very full-hearted endorsement of the Opposition's argument for commercial freedom that they make no mention of it in their motion.
  To be fair to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church), they did argue in favour of some measure of commercial freedom and were joined by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). One assumes, from what he said among the political invective, that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) also believes in a measure of commercial freedom. None of those hon. Members gave a coherent presentation of how we could achieve commercial freedom in the public sector, which, after all, is at the heart of this debate.
  The problem is that the Labour party is ideologically opposed to any proposals that are labelled as privatisation. The hon. Member for Dagenham accused us of it, but it is her party that is being ideologically dogmatic by not recognising that the Post Office needs commercial freedom and that the only way to deliver it is privatisation.
  It is interesting to note that senior management of the Post Office have consistently argued for privatisation. Bill Cockburn was an articulate proponent of it. It is much to the loss of the Post Office that he tired of waiting for something to happen. He wanted privatisation, but, sadly, he has gone to W. H. Smith—to its gain and to the loss of the Post Office. Michael Heron continues to argue in favour of privatisation.
  Sadly, the Labour party takes the view that what senior management want cannot also be in the best interests of the Post Office's work force. That was clear from the

  425
  sneering comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South and the way in which she referred to City institutions and from the reference of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to fat cats. Those are typical left-wing arguments—what is good for management will automatically be bad for those who work for the business. Rather, it could more appropriately be argued that management is best placed to know what is likely to benefit the business.
  The first thing that the management of the Post Office has always recognised is that Royal Mail is at the heart of the business and that success must be achieved in that sector. In relative terms, it is more important than any other part of the business. If the fortunes of Royal Mail go down, so, too, will those of Post Office Counters.
  Royal Mail has been, historically, a labour-intensive organisation, but is becoming less so because of technology, especially automatic sorting equipment, which becomes more advanced almost every day. It represents a huge investment by the Post Office to keep up to date with technological advances.
  Technology means that a given volume of mail can be handled by a smaller work force. We have heard from two hon. Members who are sponsored by unions with an interest in the Post Office, and I appreciate that the unions are concerned that the use of new technology could result in lost jobs. That is the gut reaction when one tries to gauge what might happen. My local sorting office on Eastern avenue, Gloucester provides several hundred jobs, and I must consider what is in the best interests of safeguarding them. To ignore the arguments about the advantages of privatisation is the very way to place those jobs in jeopardy.
  That privatisation would ultimately mean job losses is the thrust of the message from the Labour party to the unions or, given the wording in the Opposition motion, perhaps it is the thrust of the message from the unions to the Labour party. The reverse is almost certainly closer to the truth. It is not possible now to stop new technology, and no one would want to stop new investment in plant. It is possible, however, to take steps to ensure that the volume of mail handled by the Post Office and the profit that it generates increases rather than decreases. That can best be achieved, as every hon. Member who has spoken has accepted, by facing up to the fierce and growing competition to which the Post Office is subject.
  It is easy to talk about competition without appreciating the impact that it has on the business of the Post Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has already said, one of the most profitable sectors of Post Office business is the delivery of bulk business-to-business commercial circulars. The Dutch post office, PTT, to which reference has already been made, has become extremely skilful at bidding for bulk United Kingdom direct mail business. That mail goes from the United Kingdom to destinations outside our country. PTT has been most successful at creaming off business that would otherwise have gone to Royal Mail.
  The Dutch post office has now gone further, however, because it has succeeded in bidding for bulk mail destined for United Kingdom addresses. According to the accounting conventions operated by the Universal Postal Union, four fifths of the revenue raised through the
  426
  postage rate goes to the country collecting the post and just one fifth goes to the country making that delivery. Where bulk mail business bound for destinations within the United Kingdom is taken on by an outside Post Office, Royal Mail bears the bulk of the costs and gains the minimum of the revenue. It is necessary to address that problem.
  Why can the Dutch post office organise itself to win such business? The first reason is that it can make proper commercial quotations and charge proper commercial tariffs. In the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in May 1995, some reference was made to Royal Mail being allowed to be more commercial in the deals that it makes. It must, however, still make deals according to fixed formulae. The Dutch post office does not have that constraint, so it can bid for a line of business at a price that it knows will secure it. Special tariffs for special customers is a commercial feature available to the Dutch post office but not available to Royal Mail.
  Secondly, the Dutch post office can offer a combination of services, such as the fulfilment of a total postal requirement that covers designing and printing an item, enclosing it in an envelope, generating the address to which it can go and providing transport to take it there. Royal Mail is currently constrained from offering that combination, which customers want.
  Thirdly, the Dutch post office is able to enter into realistic alliances and joint ventures. It does not have to ask the Dutch Government whether it is all right to make an alliance or a joint venture with a company; it can get on and do so. That is real commercial freedom.
  It was encouraging, in one way, to note from the statement in May 1995 that we are starting to move in that direction, but we have not gone anywhere near far enough. Some Opposition Members have argued that it does not matter because foreign post offices do not have the right to deliver to United Kingdom addresses; the bulk of the business is a Royal Mail monopoly and therefore Royal Mail is protected. That is a misconceived point of view because it is based on the assumption that the post is an irreplaceable service. That is not so.
  As a communication medium, writing on a piece of paper and sending it around the world carried by hand is a very outmoded concept, and will quickly be overtaken by all types of communication methods such as the Internet, e-mail, fax and all the others that were mentioned earlier. Royal Mail's problem is that its business is rooted in a function that is going out of date, and if there ever was an argument why it needs to be able to expand its repertoire, that must be it.
  The strategy for the British Post Office should allow it to compete vigorously and effectively in its share of the postal market, whatever size that market may be, and to have the freedom to stake its claim to what will be the alternatives to carrying a piece of paper around the globe.
  In my opinion, commercial freedom is vital, and commercial freedom in the public sector is a contradiction in terms. If commercial freedom means anything, it means the opportunity to take a risk—an argument that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). If the Post Office is in the public sector and it is allowed to take a proper risk, that risk is underwritten by the taxpayer. That is the central message that the Opposition parties need to be able to understand

  427
  and digest because, until they do, they will never adopt a policy on the Post Office that would give it a satisfactory future.
  It is wrong that an organisation such as the Post Office has to seek the Government's approval whenever it wants to make a significant investment decision and that an obligation is placed on the Department of Trade and Industry to involve itself in such decisions, not only because it has a right to do so but because, as guardian of the taxpayer's money, it has a duty to do so. The Post Office must be allowed to set its own financial targets, to make its own investment decisions and to raise capital when it needs to do so.
  Opposition Members have complained about the level of the external financing limit. I entirely accept the basis of their complaint—that the EFL is far too high and that it inhibits the Post Office—but the answer is to replace the EFL with the corporation tax that the Post Office, as a public company, would pay like any other public company.
  As things stand, Royal Mail is undoubtedly destined to lose business on a global scale unless steps are taken. Other post offices, such as the Swedish post office, the Dutch post office and PostDienst in Germany, have recognised that fact. Theo Jongsma, the managing director of PTT, when visiting London in 1994, said:
  "I support the privatisation of postal companies worldwide".
  That view is shared by chief executives of other leading European post offices. We must have a strong, profitable Post Office if we are to preserve the uniform price and universal delivery to which the Government are committed and which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) stressed. Profits are the best way of ensuring that those undertakings are met.
  Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle in predicting that Post Office privatisation will occur in the not too distant future. I further predict that, when it occurs, the unions that are linked to so many Labour Members who currently oppose privatisation will be the first to invest in it.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: Like my colleagues, I am a sponsored member of the Communication Workers Union and I freely declare that interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) explained to the House precisely what that means: none of us receives any financial payment for the honour of being sponsored by the union.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has left the Chamber. Last year he and I participated in a debate at Durham university, where he was a former student. That evening he had the unenviable task of defending the following motion: "That the House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government". I won the debate and the hon. Gentleman, who was then a member of Her Majesty's Government, was subsequently sacked from it.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present to hear my remarks tonight, as I am always interested to hear what he has to say about these matters. He is a Thatcherite, and such people are now restricted to the political Jurassic Park. The hon. Gentleman wanders around in a field. He is let out occasionally to graze; he is then returned to the field and the gate is closed.
  428
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle suffers from the political equivalent of mad cow disease: he believes that we should adopt the principles of privatisation and the free market. [Interruption.] If the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), will be quiet for a moment, I shall deliver my speech in my own way.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle derided the concept of public service in his speech. Many years ago when I worked for the Post Office—admittedly, I was a telephone engineer and not a postman—I was proud of the public service that I performed. I know that the members of my union—including the postmen and women—are very proud of the public service that they provide. They do not simply deliver letters, issue stamps at a Crown post office, or pay social security benefits at a sub-post office: they are imbued with a sense of public service.
  If the milk bottles are on the doorstep of an old-aged pensioner's house three days after they should have been removed, it is the postman or woman who reports it to the police or the local social services. They are much more than deliverers of letters: they are an essential part of the community. They take burgeoning pride in the fact that they are public servants—just as I did when I was a public servant working for the Post Office.
  I remember connecting electricity late one winter's night for a farmer whose sheep were lambing. I did not do that because I was being paid overtime; I did it because it was my job. Postmen and women do the same thing. What is wrong with the principle espoused by Rowland Hill, the founder of the modern British Post Office— no matter where a person lives, be it in Land's End or the Shetland Isles, when he buys a second-class or first-class stamp he pays the same price as everyone else. It is not the private market but public service dedication that guarantees that his letter will be delivered—even if the postman has to put a sack on his back and walk 15 miles over the hills. For the price of a 19p second-class stamp, the letter will be delivered.
  I do not want to hear any more from Conservative Members about deriding the concept of public service because—as the Father of the House said—their constituents value the public service ethic imbued in the members of today's Post Office.
  Much has been said about the milch cow effect that the Government have on the Post Office. I am a simple soul— a telephone engineer who became a politician. I never understand the problem with allowing the Post Office to have a different EFL formula. Why must we constrain what is undoubtedly a very profitable business with Treasury mumbo-jumbo? The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said that the taxpayer guarantees the Post Office while it remains in the public sector. Is he saying that the Post Office will go bust if the public sector borrowing rules are relaxed? Of course it will not. A little more imagination is required—and that seems lacking on the Conservative Benches—with anything to do with the public sector. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, we should examine the potential for developing the Post Office in the public sector as a profitable business and releasing the shackles of Treasury constraint and phoney EFL rules.
  For all the theorising of the Jurassic Park hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, the constituents of Conservative Members will not allow them to privatise

  429
  the Post Office. If Conservative Members want to be turkeys voting for an early Christmas, they should support privatisation. They will not win the next general election if that measure is in the Conservative manifesto.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: After that somewhat intemperate and antediluvian contribution from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), I shall refer to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who spoke about a pragmatic approach to privatisation. Ever since I first became interested in privatisation in 1978, I have taken the entirely pragmatic view that it should be agreed only if it gives significant consumer benefits in terms of price, quality and service.
  It is arrogant of the Opposition to table a motion that opposes even the stated intention of reopening the question of privatising the Royal Mail and Parcelforce. The Opposition do not even want to examine the arguments; they proceed from the ideological basis that the arguments should not be put to the British people.
  Even more arrogant was the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). When he was confronted with the facts by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—who pointed out that the Conservative party, having privatised no fewer than 57 companies and public sector institutions, won the 1983, 1987 and 1992 general elections—the hon. Gentleman said that that was not the result of any decision by the electorate but the consequence of
  "slavish adherence to their party."
  The fact that the Conservatives got 19 million votes— a record—at the last election shows that that is patent nonsense.
  Ms Church rose—
  Mr. Coombs: I do not have time to give way if I am to leave enough time for the winding-up speeches.
  I come from the constituency where Roland Hill was born. We celebrated the 200th anniversary of his birth a few weeks ago. I support a universal letter service and a nationwide system of post offices, at a uniform price. I also recognise that, under a Conservative Government, the Post Office has taken significant steps forward, many of which have already been mentioned. The volume of mail has risen by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years.
  Through its customer first culture—a 1993 survey confirms this—the Post Office has become more generally appreciated by the public. Postal charges have not risen since 1993 and are lower than they were in 1979, and last year the Post Office made a profit of £472 million. All this is evidence of an efficient organisation, but one operating as a monopoly. That enables it to produce results that might not be possible in a competitive market.
  Although the organisation is commercial, it is operating in a significantly changing environment, which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). The changes usually involve technology: e-mail, telexes, faxes, interactive television and cable. All will begin to eat into the traditional market held by
  430
  the Post Office. The United States experience shows that only 15 per cent. of international express mail is now dealt with by public post offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester talked about the Dutch privatisation and the inroads that have been made into the British bulk mail market. The Swedish Government have ended the monopoly of their service; the same goes for Canada and New Zealand. The German Government have just privatised their telecommunications business, so they will be looking for additional international outlets.
  This, therefore, is an increasingly competitive international business. Two years ago, The Economist wrote:
  "Those post offices that find new markets and cut costs—meaning those that are privatised—will be the ones that thrive. That means not just nationally but internationally. Cross-border business mail is growing fast. And successful private mail operators, like other privatised utilities, could one day invest direct in foreign businesses, galvanising sleepy local competition. For those that are held back by their political masters, the future would then be a bleak one, as shrunken suppliers of traditional domestic physical mail."
  That is why I believe that, while Post Office Counters can be kept in the public sector and arrangements can be made to keep our network of already generally private post offices, and although the business of post offices is set to increase—insurance, bulk cash handling, banking, sales of tickets, pensions and driving licences—the organisation must go forward to the privatisation of Royal Mail and Parcelforce, and it should happen not on a 51 per cent. basis but on a 100 per cent. basis.
  Competition must result from the privatisation. Ninety per cent. of the population, following the privatisation of BT, now have access to alternative services such as Mercury. Similarly, we must introduce a duopoly, or even greater competition, to the postal services market. That would lead to the sort of expansion that everyone in the House wants, and it would allow the Post Office to compete as it wants to. It would be quite consistent with the privatisation policy of this Government which has been such a success.
  The Economist had this to say:
  "One of the Conservatives' clearest triumphs over the past 15 years has been the privatisation of state-owned companies. Fat nationalised industries have been transformed into fit and profitable enterprises. Huge subsidies have been eliminated. The prices of phone calls, electricity and gas have dropped in real terms. Services have improved strikingly. Eager to learn from this success, scores of governments have studied the British example".
  That is precisely what has happened in the case of British Telecom, British Gas, the water companies, British Aerospace, British Airways, Rolls-Royce and the rest of the 57 companies that the Government have privatised. The lesson has been learnt: privatisation means increased competition, more commitment, lower prices, more investment and better quality for the consumer.
  What I find so nauseating is the fact that, although the Labour party pretends to be market-friendly and to approach subjects such as this in a way that is likely to assist the consumer, we find at every turn that it is the friend of the producer and the trade unions. It is no coincidence that all the Labour Members who have spoken in the debate have been sponsored by trade unions in the industry.
  Labour Members says that they are objective. Why, then, did they oppose every privatisation proposed by the Government? They say that they want to examine the

  431
  issues objectively and sensibly. Why, then, do they not even want to engage in a study of the potential of telecommunications privatisation? They pretend to be the consumer's friend; yet they insist on interference and bureaucracy that would damage the consumer's interests. Most hypocritical of all, they say that they favour a stakeholder society—yet they would deny us privatisation, under which the number of private shareholders has risen from 3 million when the Conservatives were first elected to more than 11 million now. If that is not a stakeholding in British industry, I do not know what is.
  Like Labour's policies, the motion is redolent of the party's hypocrisy in regard to industrial and economic matters. I urge the House to reject it.
  9.36 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was so intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Wyre Valley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wyre Forest."] I mean the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Obviously I have valleys on the brain. Anyway, I was so intrigued by his speech that I failed to observe your arrival in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest were not appropriate. We chose this topic for debate because we are interested not only in the issue of Post Office privatisation, but in what happens to the Post Office in general. The motion refers to the future of the Post Office. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friends are genuinely interested in debating the subject: that is why we are here tonight.
  I valued not just the wisdom of those of my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening—some spoke from experience—but the contribution of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and, for different reasons, that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Both showed up the sham of the amendment. The Father of the House pointed out that the commitment to privatisation was conspicuous by its absence; indeed, he said that he would vote with the Government precisely because the amendment was vague, and pointed out that the Government were not going to privatise the Post Office. Nothing could be more damning than that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about whoever drafted the amendment: I cannot believe that he drafted it himself.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was interesting. It was, at least, an honest, forthright and at times courageous statement that the Government should privatise the Post Office. The Government, however, are afraid to say whether they will do so.
  Hon. Members' speeches have reflected in the House the public reactions of hon. Members to the Prime Minister's Frost interview in January. It is worth recalling the words of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who said:
  "I think it would be both astonishing and unwise to revive this matter again. The post office runs perfectly well as a successful and profitable public corporation, unlike other industries which have been privatised in the past. I do not believe its privatisation would command any strong public support in the next election."
  432
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) said:
  "It is still an efficient post office … I am lukewarm, to say the least, about the case for putting anything in the manifesto."
  Such reactions are by no means limited to hon. Members. The passions aroused by the issue of Post Office privatisation are shared widely throughout the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister recognised that when, in the same Frost interview, he said:
  "We are democrats and if we can't get something through Parliament then we can't do it."
  That quotation has the hallmarks of the Prime Minister's peculiar syntax, but I use it anyway.
  Why on earth has the Prime Minister announced that he wants to have another shot at the privatisation of the Post Office? Is it because the Government have yet to find an ideological successor to the privatisation programme of his predecessor in the 1980s?
  Mr. Stephen Day: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Howells: No, I am sorry but I do not have time.
  Are we to view that announcement as part of the legislative programme outlined in last year's Queen's Speech which Conservative central office described as
  "pushing forward radical policies for the millennium"?
  I am glad that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), agrees with that. To privatise or not to privatise is the totality of the Tory vision for Britain.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East said that the Post Office runs perfectly well as a successful and profitable public corporation, and we must all agree. The evidence is irrefutable. Last year, it made £472 million profit. The Government certainly agree with him. That is why the Chancellor announced last November that the Government were requiring the Post Office to provide an additional £400 million for the Treasury coffers during the next three years. They will milk the Post Office, not for £532 million as the previous President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, said last May, but for £925 million.
  If it works, why fix it? That was a question that the consultancy, London Economics, examined in its critique of the Government's Green Paper on the future of the postal service. It concluded:
  "Privatisation itself is not a fundamental driver of efficiency improvement. Competition, effective regulation and a determination to restructure the business when necessary matter more."
  Why do not the Government understand that? The British people do. That is why they trust the Post Office. Polling evidence, which has been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, tells us that they believe it to be efficient, safe, competitively priced, community based and accountable and, through its Crown post offices and sub-post offices, it constitutes a functioning social centre in most communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) reminded us so forcibly, the British people perceive it as being staffed by individuals who know and care about the communities that they serve.
  The Post Office is one of the great popular institutions, binding together all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government must know that countries such as ours do not

  433
  hang together without some form of social and cultural cement, be it a common history of opposition to tyranny or an affection for institutions as diverse as the Queen's Christmas message or the theme tune from "EastEnders". We hear endless homilies from the Government about how important it is for the British people to recognise the strength that we have in unity. It is curious that they seem unprepared to consider the possibility of strengthening this great national institution.
  People trust the Post Office. They trust postal staff and, in particular, they trust postmen and postwomen. If anybody wants proof of how far the public trust them, I challenge the Government to try to make a lovable children's cartoon hero out of Private Pension Adviser Albert and see how he gets on in the television ratings against Postman Pat.
  The Post Office brand name is invaluable to it. Its red vans and office signs are among the best known of all liveries in the world. It guarantees good and reliable service, uniform prices and universal delivery. No matter what the Government might promise to convince us that they are interested in protecting those guarantees, the public do not believe it, and with good reason.
  By international standards, the Post Office is very efficient and its services are competitively priced. If it is given sufficient powers by the Government, it will be capable of meeting all its commercial challenges from home and abroad. Will the Government give it those powers? On the contrary. When the Chancellor announced his intention to levy the extra £400 million on Post Office profits, he was levying a new tax on the public through the inevitable increase in stamp charges. Why did he decide to do that? Because the new levy makes sense only if it is interpreted as an attempt to sabotage the image of the Post Office as a profitable concern—in other words, to blacken its name in the eyes of the public. It is the softening-up process for privatisation.
  From the same briefing document to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle referred, the Association of International Courier Express Services and DHL made no secret of the fact that they are, as they put it,
  "extremely conscious of the value of the universal service provided by the Royal Mail"
  and none of the Government's proposals for extending competition in the postal services seeks to undermine that service. Why should they? Those organisations, which represent 95 per cent. of the United Kingdom's express distribution industry, also represent the commercial interests of some 60,000 employees. That is 60,000 households that know the value of the service that the Post Office provides. Those organisations demand not that the Government should start to dismember the Post Office or bleed it to death but that they should get their act together on examining and strengthening the rules of competition so that the express distribution companies have an equal opportunity to compete.
  Their aspirations are not a world apart from those expressed by the Post Office chief executive, Mr. John Roberts, and his managers in the aftermath of the Chancellor's November announcement. They are as acutely aware as the private operators of the challenges posed by the European Commission's draft directive and,
  434
  more worrying, the draft notice on the implementation of proposals and timetables for the liberalisation of postal services in the European Union. Through the media grapevine, they have made it abundantly clear that the Chancellor's increases in the negative external financing limit are likely to mean that they will be damaged in their attempt to meet those challenges.
  If the indirect extraction of capital is too great, it will leave little funding for the Post Office's investment programme and the competitiveness of the Post Office will be affected. That in turn could have an adverse effect on the quality of service and give the Government the perfect excuse for arguing that the only way for the Post Office to compete successfully is through privatisation. That is happening at a critical time for Post Office Counters. A huge modernisation programme is about to be implemented there under the private finance initiative. If any project demands a secure and consistent business climate, it is that one, but it is not likely to enjoy such a climate because the Prime Minister's statement has nothing to do with improving the performance of postal services.
  The Government have decided to privatise the Post Office through a secret agenda and not openly. I have no doubt whatever about that. That is why the Government's amendment is so weak and inconclusive. The Prime Minister is considering, once again, the privatisation of the industry for one reason only: he needs to throw his own right wing—many of whom have been represented here tonight—some red meat occasionally, and the latest lump of red meat is this reheated bit tonight. He will not be able to look to the Post Office for support, as I do not think that Mr. John Roberts will take the same line as his predecessor. He has made it clear that he wants to get on with the job that he is paid for: making this a successful, efficient and profitable business. Judging by the Post Office's financial results, it seems that it has been doing that job well.
  This is a case of the worst sort of political interference in the affairs of a healthy and forward-looking company. The Post Office is asking questions that are generated by the commercial realities of national and international competition, but it is receiving nothing more by way of a reply from the Prime Minister than the whine of internal party conflicts on the Conservative Benches.
  Why do the Government bother when the best that the Prime Minister could come out with on Post Office privatisation in his fateful interview with Sir David Frost was:
  "I would like to have seen it but there was no parliamentary majority for it … We will look again and see if it is a subject for the next Parliament when we come to look at the manifesto."
  Talk about hedging his bets. That statement is the worst sort of mischief-making. There is no courage in it, no determination. It is a tease. Will he or won't he? What he will do is remind everyone that this clapped-out Government have only one agenda: to cling to power by persuading their rebellious right-wing to troop through the Division Lobby. If that means sacrificing a first-class postal service, so be it, says the Prime Minister. That is why I commend the motion to the House.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I am grateful for this chance to reply to the debate. I have

  435
  listened carefully to all the speeches and I especially enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who has much experience in this sector, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), with which I agreed.
  I was interested also in what Opposition Members said about possible Post Office privatisation. I remind those who bothered to turn up to what, after all, is a debate on an Opposition motion—at one point, only seven Opposition Members were here, most of whom seem to be sponsored by the Post Office union—of the comments that some of their predecessors have made about earlier privatisations. When we privatised British Airways, the Labour spokesman said that it would become
  "the pantomime horse of capitalism".—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
  The person who said that was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench and is the Labour Chief Whip. What happened is that British Airways has been transformed from the airline that was rated below Aeroflot by its passengers, to the world's favourite airline, carrying more international passengers than any other in the world. It is the most profitable and the largest airline in Europe. French, Italian and Spanish taxpayers are still contributing hundreds of millions of pounds keeping their sad, state-owned flag carriers in the air, but British Airways is contributing money to hospitals and schools—not bad for a pantomime horse.
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have limited time. Could you persuade the Minister to return to the subject of the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I was not aware that the Minister had left it.
  Mr. Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman spoke for 22 minutes and then left the Chamber—no doubt to collect his cheque from his union sponsors—
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am not giving way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Lady raising a point of order?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the Minister has given way. I ask him again to do so.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I have only a short time left. Opposition Members spoke for too long.
  Mrs. Beckett rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot possibly have two hon. Members shouting across the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Lady has the Dispatch Box.
  Mrs. Beckett: I was saying that the Minister has made a disgracefully worded allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). He should withdraw it, according, I think, to the rules of the House.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Had the right hon. Lady been in the Chamber for her hon. Friend's 22-minute speech, she would know that he admitted to being sponsored by the union.
  436
  On Second Reading—
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Connarty: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that I left the Chamber to receive a cheque from another organisation. That was an accusation that I took money in my hand, when I had explained that I received no money from anyone. I believe that that was a severe abuse of the Minister's position, and I ask him to withdraw it. I ask you to instruct him to withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister said that the hon. Gentleman received a cheque for his speech— [Interruption.] Order. If that is what the Minister said, that was not an appropriate charge, and I should be grateful if he would withdraw it.
  Mr. Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive about his union sponsorship, of course I withdraw.
  On Second Reading of the Telecommunications Bill— the Act that privatised BT—the Labour spokesman, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), said:
  "The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.].
  Instead, the number of BT call boxes has risen by 30 per cent., and now they work. Getting a telephone line in the 1970s, when the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was up his telegraph pole, was like trying to get an interview with the Pope. Now one can get a telephone in seven days.
  It is not only in the utilities that privatisation has brought benefits. As a nationalised industry, British Steel was the world's largest loss-maker. Now it is the most efficient steel producer in Europe, and one of the best in the world. British Aerospace has overtaken state-owned Aerospatiale of France to become Europe's biggest defence and aerospace manufacturer. Unlike the French company, British Airways makes a profit. Rolls-Royce, on the borders of my constituency, has increased its share of the world civil aero-engine market from 10 to 30 per cent.
  Best and perhaps most important of all, whereas in 1979 state-run industries were depriving hospitals and schools in Britain of £85 million a week—that is what they cost to run—the privatised industries are now contributing £55 million a week in taxes to our schools and hospitals.
  Ms Church: What about the Post Office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot keep yelling the words "Post Office". I draw her attention to the amendment.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am glad that the Opposition chose to debate the Post Office, because we have a policy and they do not. We have a policy, because the past 16 years have shown that privatisation has resulted in more investment, better services and lower prices.

  437
  We have our policies in place. Now the Opposition, who called the debate, should say what their policy is. Tonight they have complained about the external financing limit. Let us hear what their policy is. I challenge the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to say whether a future Labour Government, if there is one, will reduce the external financing limit. Will she or will she not? Of course she will not.
  I am told that a Labour party publication called Women Today recently held a competition inviting people to
  "Win a day in Parliament—all you have to do is say in no more than 100 words what the policies and priorities of a Labour Government would be."
  Obviously we shall have to wait until those good ladies have returned their answers before we hear any clear policies from the Opposition.
  As usual, all we have heard from the Opposition is motherhood and apple pie—political escalator muzak, meaningless waffle. But perhaps I am being unfair, because the Opposition are clear about one thing: the core values of new Labour's great visionary forward-looking project do not include an acceptance of the benefits of privatisation.
  That sits oddly with Labour's stated desire to make new Labour more like Europe's social democratic parties. Over the past decade, privatisation has been accepted by social democrats in Sweden, Holland and Belgium. Even the socialists in France, Italy and Spain have accepted it. Even in Vietnam and Cuba, they are beginning to see the light. Who does that leave? It leaves new Labour and North Korea; the Leader of the Opposition and Kim Jong II walking in lockstep to oblivion.
  I invite the House to reject the Opposition motion and support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 289.

  Division No. 46]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainger, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Byers, Stephen

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Battle, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Bayley, Hugh

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Church, Judith

  Bell, Stuart

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Corbett, Robin

  438

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fisher, Mark

  McMaster, Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Maddock, Diana

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mahon, Alice

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mandelson, Peter

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Garrett, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Meale, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michael, Alun

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hall, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Paul

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

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

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hutton, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  439

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Sutcliffe, Gerry,

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Turner, Dennis

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watson, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Simpson, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Churchill, Mr

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Congdon, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bates, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Booth, Hartley

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bums, Simon

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butcher, John

  Evennett, David

  Butler, Peter

  Faber, David

  Butterfill, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  440

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mills, lain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robatnan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rurnbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Sproat, lain

  Lidington, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  441

  Steen, Anthony

  Wakten, George

  Stem, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason Roy

  Thompson Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thumham, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,

  That this House welcomes the substantial benefits which have flowed to customers from the Government's programme of privatisation; recognises that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in the United Kingdom are already in the private sector; and endorses the Government's continuing commitment to a universal postal service at a uniform and affordable tariff and a nationwide network of post offices.

  Post Office Privatisation

    DEREGULATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

    That the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Time Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

    That the draft Deregulation (Corn Returns Act 1882) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

    That the draft Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973) (Amendment) (Merger Reference Time Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

    That the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved. —[Mr. Knapman.]

    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    10.16 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who are concerned that the Government are not doing enough to protect sites of special scientific interest. The petition says:

    The petition of York Friends of the Earth and residents of York

    Declares that we understand that every year between 200–300 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), our best wildlife sites, are damaged or destroyed.

    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to support Friends of the Earth's SSSI campaign by passing tougher laws to protect our best wildlife sites.

    That is signed by Guy Wallbanks of York Friends of the Earth and 742 supporters of his cause.

    To lie upon the Table.

    Fire Stations (London)
    10.17 pm
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: This is a petition from residents of Plumstead, Shooters Hill and the surrounding area. It is backed by a petition in similar words with 30,000 signatures that is being delivered to the Department of the Environment and more than 1,000 letters that I have received from constituents and organisations, including the community police consultative committee. The petition sheweth:
    That it is proposed to close the Shooters Hill Fire Station, Woolwich SE18 3BT and that we the undersigned, vigorously oppose the planned closure, which will seriously reduce the fire cover available in the surrounding area putting both lives and property at risk. The danger will be compounded by the closure of the Downham Fire Station in the neighbouring Borough of Lewisham and the removal of a Fire Appliance from the East Greenwich Fire Station in Charlton. These cuts in fire cover are part of a package of proposals which will result in the closure of four fire stations across London and the removal of 22 Fire Appliances from other stations and result from the substantial cut in the resources available to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Furthermore, categorisation of risks, and the attendance times based upon that categorisation, place a higher priority on protecting buildings than saving lives.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to increase the Standard Spending Assessment for the LFCDA and urge the Home Secretary to conduct an independent review of risk categorisation and for them to intervene to prevent the closure of Shooters Hill Fire Station.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Libya and Iraq (Sactions)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
    10.19 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq have caused the death of more than 560,000 children since the Gulf war, according to a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation study reported in The Lancet. According to Dr. Mary Smith Fawzi of the Harvard School of Public Health,
    "Food prices are high, purchasing power is low, water and sanitation systems have deteriorated, hospitals are functioning at 40 per cent. capacity and the population is largely sustained by government rations which provide 1,000 calories per person per day."
    An editorial in The Lancet states that Governments are now being unrealistic in expecting sanctions to cause Iraqis to rebel and notes:
    "Western arms and diplomacy have failed to unseat Saddam Hussein. Why expect a population enfeebled by disease to do so?"
    I have asked the Foreign Office to respond tonight to the moving "Thought for the day" that was given by the Bishop of Leicester, Dr. Tom Butler, of which I have given it a copy. He said:
    "Five years ago … the allied attack started in the Gulf War which drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Hostilities ended with Saddam Hussein still in power, but we are told that his overthrow hadn't been the objective of the war.
    An economic embargo was then imposed by the United Nations together with a ban on Iraqi sales of oil so denying it access to foreign exchange. The assumption obviously was that if life became sufficiently uncomfortable for the Iraqi people they would overthrow their leader.
    Not surprisingly, this hasn't happened. It is rather like a teacher telling a class of frightened schoolboys to sort out the class bully themselves and that they would all be punished until they did so. Well, the Iraqi people have been well and truly punished and Saddam Hussein is still in power."
    The bishop went on to say that, 18 months ago, he and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)
    "visited Baghdad on a humanitarian mission to see how UN sanctions were affecting the Iraqi people. We were horrified by what we saw. We paid unannounced visits to modern hospitals staffed by Western trained doctors and nurses now operating in virtual stone age conditions without electricity, drugs, clean dressings or bedding. We saw children dying of diseases usually only seen in famine conditions in sub-Sahara Africa. Once people heard our English accents, they came up to us angrily demanding to know why the West was punishing them in this way.
    It wasn't easy to answer for to withhold medical supplies from enemy civilians is against the Geneva conventions but, of course, we are not at war with Iraq and so the conventions do not apply. Neither is the UN totally refusing to allow medical supplies into Iraq but the Iraqi government say that it finds the conditions which would be imposed humiliating. We had several meetings with Iraqi ministers and were angered and frustrated by the way it seems to us that they were prepared to hold their own people hostage to put pressure on the West to totally lift sanctions when, with a modicum of goodwill, modest amounts of medical and food aid could be supplied to the Iraqi people without any great principle being breached.
    But eighteen months later sanctions still bite into every Iraqi home and add to the climate of fear present everywhere. Meanwhile the world turns its attention to other trouble spots. In our own country this week there has been a call for a return to the teaching of
    444
    traditional moral standards. Well, with the ordinary people of Iraq in mind, let me remind you of some of Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount
    Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God.
    Blessed are they that mourn for they will be comforted."
    It is not only left-wing Members of Parliament and bishops who take that view. The Saudi prince, who was the joint commander of the Gulf war allied forces, said that the United Nations should look for an alternative to sanctions against Iraq because the punitive measures had not worked. General Prince Khaled Bin Sultan told reporters after meeting Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, that sanctions imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had strengthened rather than weakened President Saddam Hussein's Government.
    "The sanctions have not achieved their aim"
    said the Saudi Prince
    "and we must look for another way. I am not against ending the sanctions on Iraq but they are based on UN conventions and resolutions … The alternative must come from the United Nations and from the only world superpower, the United States."
    I do not know what the British Government have to say in reply.
    Secondly, I shall discuss Lockerbie. At Inverness, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on 5 February 1996,I said:
    "May I ask a short question, which could be answered in three words, about the evidence that Law Officers claim to have on Lockerbie? Where physically is the crucial timing device and in whose possession?"
    The Lord Advocate replied:
    "As members of the Committee know well, it is not the policy of Lord Advocates to discuss in advance of trial any evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of the accused."
    He told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is in the Chamber tonight:
    "My position on the matter is clear. A petition warrant has been granted for the two individuals concerned and we are … ready to prosecute them in Scotland. The only reason why they are not in Scotland now is because of their actions and those of the Libyan Government. There will be no change of policy on my part to that adopted by my predecessor in trying to bring them to justice in Scotland."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 February 1996; c. 6–8.]
    I ask some questions. First, would any set of British Ministers, were the boot on the other foot, encourage two Scots whom they believed to be innocent to surrender themselves to a country with whom we had no extradition treaty?
    Mr. John Austin-Walker indicated assent.
    Mr. Dalyell: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) nodding in agreement because he has been to Libya and witnessed what the reaction is likely to be.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: I have indeed had discussions with the lawyers for the two accused, and I believe that we would all agree that it is in the best interests of the accused and of the families of the victims of Lockerbie

    445
    that those accused are brought to trial soon. I have also had discussions, as my hon. Friend is aware, with the Secretary of the Arab League, who has made proposals, which I believe are acceptable to the defence counsel in Libya and to the Libyan Government, for a trial to take place in The Hague before Scottish judges under Scottish law. Does my hon. Friend consider that that would be a way to proceed, and would he urge the Government to accept that offer?
    Mr. Dalyell: I do, and I believe that my hon. Friend's intervention is extremely important and must be replied to by the Government.
    Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to allow our hostile relations with Libyans, many of whom were educated in Britain, to drift on indefinitely and for a longer period than our post-war hostility to Germany after massive bloodshed, mayhem and horror in the second world war?
    Thirdly, how does information about the whereabouts of the timer, and in whose possession the timer is, in any way prejudice a trial? The truth, I believe, is that if the authorities have a timer at all, it is not the timer from Pan Am 103 but a different timer, probably acquired later via Senegal.
    We do not know when the timer was found, who found it and what happened to it after it was found, and it beggars belief that such a sensitive device, after months of exposure to a Scottish winter, could, in fragments or otherwise, be in a pristine condition. It is all too clear why the Government will not show the timer to the makers, Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpart—because they might identify it as not having been of a Libyan batch. Photographs are all that have been made available.
    Pamela Dix, their secretary, speaking for the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, says that they are deeply suspicious of photographs and want an independent forensic inquiry, conducted by agreed experts. Will such an inquiry be considered?
    Finally, can it be true that the Minister, in his meeting with the relatives, Dr. Swire and the Rev. John Mosey, said that the British Government were opposed to a trial in The Hague partly because they were worried about the possibility of wrongful acquittal? "Fear of wrongful acquittal"—did he say that?
    It is my pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has an honourable part in the discussion.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate on this important subject. I am grateful to him and to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for agreeing to allow me to make a short contribution to the debate, in which I shall concentrate on the Libyan question. I begin by declaring an interest which appears in the Register of Members' Interests—I visited Libya last April as a guest of the Islamic Council of Scotland.
    I do not intend to examine the position of the Crown Office. However, it is fair to say that many people with no particular axe to grind are having increasing doubts
    446
    about the Crown Office's position—particularly about why apparently solid evidence which might have led the Crown Office to a different conclusion has been rejected. I shall make two points about the sanctions policy.
    First, what is the objective? The hon. Member for Linlithgow pointed out correctly that the objective is not succeeding in relation to Iraq. History shows that such economic sanctions do not succeed, and there is not the slightest evidence that such sanctions will be effective in achieving their declared purpose in relation to Libya— especially as there appears to be no real communication between the British and the Libyan Governments on the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to explain why the British Government are so opposed to the international court idea, to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred.
    Finally, there is a widespread view that the British are the only people who are obeying the sanctions policy. The Americans are using the South Koreans to get around the policy and the Italians, being Italians—I do not want to sound like a Euro-sceptic—never obey any of those policies. The net result is that the British are obeying the sanctions and other countries are not. Great damage is therefore being done to jobs—particularly in the west of Scotland, given its export orientation—without achieving any political objective.
    The policy cannot possibly continue for ever. What will be the end result? My hon. Friend the Minister is renowned for being fair and open-minded. I hope that he will seriously take on board the arguments put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who speaks tonight on behalf of many people.
    10.32 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) for his kind remarks at the end of his speech. I assure him that the Government and I are acutely aware of the great suffering of the relations of the victims of the appalling Lockerbie disaster. The Government will do everything we can to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice—that is the bond which unites all of us in the House tonight. However, we have substantial differences of opinion as to how that could best be achieved, and that is why we are debating the issue this evening.
    I am slightly saddened that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised the issue again, only two and a half months after he last raised it in the same terms on 29 November last year. It does not do the cause any good to run continually around this course when there are no new facts and no changes which might make the Government look at the issue afresh. We discussed the matter at great length during the debate on 29 November and I have met the hon. Gentleman and the families of the victims. We all want to achieve the objective of bringing to justice the persons responsible for a horrendous crime, but replaying the record when we have substantial differences of opinion on how to achieve that objective is not necessarily the best way forward. The hon. Gentleman raised precisely the same points today as when he was previously answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but he raised other points as well and I shall attempt to respond.
    Mr. Dalyell: If that is not the best way forward, what is the best way?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The best way forward is that which the Government are adopting. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are better ways. I know that he does not agree with us, but we have made it abundantly clear to him why we are taking the action that we are and going down the road that we are. I shall spell out the reasons again for the hon. Gentleman, so that there can be no conceivable doubt.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted the Bishop of Leicester—and in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he did so in full—but he paid no regard to the phrase used by the bishop in regard to the responsibilities of the Iraqi Government. The House will forgive me if I repeat that part of the bishop's broadcast. He said:
    "We had several meetings with Iraqi Ministers and were angered and frustrated by the way it seemed to us that they were prepared to hold their own people hostage to put pressure on the West to totally lift sanctions when, with a modicum of good will, modest amounts of medical and food aid could be supplied to the Iraqi people without any great principle being breached."
    Responsibility for what is happening to the Iraqi people rests squarely with Saddam Hussein and his cohorts. Security Council resolution 986 would allow a net purchase of $2.5 billion worth of medical and humanitarian aid per annum in exchange for the oil that Iraq could sell. The UN conditions for providing that relief are perfectly reasonable, but Saddam Hussein's regime has consistently rejected them. I am not prepared to accept any responsibility on behalf of western Governments for the action of that evil man in denying to his people the aid that is available to them.
    The $2.5 billion that is available to Iraq under the UN arrangement compares with a total of $5 billion spent annually on all civilian purchases made in Iraq before the Gulf war. It is ridiculous for anybody to suggest that the hardship being caused to the Iraqi people by the absence of medical and humanitarian aid is the responsibility of western Governments, because it is not—it is the responsibility of the home Government. I cannot spell that out more strongly or with greater sincerity and fervour.
    Iraqi and United Nations representatives are meeting today in New York to discuss implementation of the Security Council resolution. I am not hopeful that they will arrive at a solution, because every time until now the Iraqi Government have turned down the UN offer. Nevertheless, I pray that the Iraqis will see reason on this occasion.
    There is an argument that sanctions are not effective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood implied. I do not believe that that is so. I hold the opinion that in this case, as with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in that troubled area, sanctions have been immensely effective. We have seen substantial compliance as a direct result of the sanctions that we have imposed on Iraq. I refer in particular to Iraq's recognition of Kuwait and the weapons inspections that have been allowed. I wish that I could say that that was satisfactory, but it is not. The British Government are not satisfied that all chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed—clearly they have not. Iraq's development of Scud missile technology continues apace, and we have not received any satisfactory explanation from the Iraqi Government of how they will comply with UN requirements—and that is critical in preventing Iraq going on the warpath again.
    448
    Iraq's human rights record has been appalling and remains appalling. I refer to the report by Mr. van de Stoel—as my right hon. Friend did in the last debate— of 8 November 1995, in which he set out in graphic and horrific detail the torture and abuse that the Iraqi regime is inflicting on its political prisoners. Therefore, sanctions must be continued, and we must ensure that Iraq complies with the UN resolutions. We cannot look for a swift end to these problems, but it must be made clear that this dictator will not be allowed to rearm his country and go on the warpath once more, as I believe he has every intention of doing. The international community must remain vigilant at all times to contain this man and maintain the sanctions as a warning to him that he must not again invade Kuwait or attack western interests.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood and the hon. Member for Linlithgow have a great and abiding concern about Libya, especially with respect to the Lockerbie disaster. I greatly respect that, and the relatives who suffered from this appalling tragedy are lucky to have a champion such as the hon. Gentleman. For all his good intentions, however, I profoundly disagree with the conclusions that he draws as to the way forward on this issue.
    I believe that the sanctions against Libya—unlike those relating to Iraq, they do not include oil—must remain in place. They are limited, but they are having an effect on the Libyan regime. There has been a change in Gaddafi's attitude to actively supporting terrorism over the past few years, and there has been some lessening of his aggression against the west. With regard to the Lockerbie disaster, however, we have not yet reached the point that we must reach—to get the two people whom we want indicted and brought to justice released to us for trial in Scotland.
    I recently met the relatives of the victims of the tragedy. I cannot express this evening my sympathy for them any more strongly than I did on those occasions, but it is sincere: I can think of no worse horror befalling any father, mother, family or relative than to have their beloved killed in such a fashion. But sympathy cannot divorce us from the reality of the political situation: we have no possibility of getting those people to trial unless we can persuade or force the Libyan Government to release them to us for trial in the place where they should be tried.
    There has been an offer of a sort from the Libyan Government to release the men for trial in a third country. I did not find unanimity among the relatives for that offer. Some thought it was a good one, others did not. In any case, it was a phoney offer. It was made in an advertisement in the Washington Post of 8 November, and it has not been sustained by the Libyan leadership.
    The Libyan position is contradictory. In a letter to the president of the Security Council on 27 January this year, the secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation repeated Libya's demand that an
    "independent inquiry should be conducted to arrive at the truth of the incident".
    That is very different from saying that the accused will be delivered for an independent trial at The Hague or elsewhere.
    We cannot be sure from one moment to another what the intentions of the Libyan Government may be. I explained to the relatives the reason why we find the

    449
    idea of trial in The Hague unacceptable. They were the same as those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in the Adjournment debate on 29 November. His main points were that, first, it is unacceptable to allow suspected terrorists to dictate where and how they should be tried. The United States and Scottish courts have both exercised jurisdiction, and they are the courts with a proper right to do so. The trial should be held in one or other of them, as the Security Council resolution has demanded.
    Secondly, a third country trial might imply that the Lockerbie suspects could not get a fair trial in Scotland. The Libyan Government indicated in 1993 acceptance that the suspects would indeed get a fair trial if they were tried in Scotland, and I am sure that no Member of this House would suggest otherwise. The court in The Hague, as proposed, would not have a jury, and that in itself is a fundamental breach of the principle of Scottish law. We would have to think very carefully before considering a trial that did not accord with the full precepts that Scottish law demands. There is no provision for a trial outside Scotland. Enormous practical and legislative difficulties would therefore be involved in the arrangement of such a trial, should that be appropriate. Legislation would be required in both countries.
    Even if it were possible to set up a court, there would be no guarantee that suspects would be made available to it. The Libyan Government have never given a strong and positive undertaking to hand over the accused; indeed, they have maintained that they have no powers to force the suspects to go to trial anywhere. Thus there is enormous scope for the Libyan Government to prevaricate, and to try to delay the matter into the distant future.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, when I was talking to the relatives and trying to convey my profound sympathy for their suffering, I said that they, like Her Majesty's Government, would consider it important for no trial to take place in any form that would not have a proper, legal and justifiable outcome. I said that it would be possible for a court—constituted we know not how or where— to come up with an acquittal that the evidence did not justify. That would not be satisfactory, and I do not believe that any hon. Member would want such an outcome.
    Only after years of painstaking effort was sufficient evidence amassed to enable the then Lord Advocate to seek the warrants. The present Lord Advocate and his two predecessors are fully satisfied that the evidence supports
    450
    the charges that have been brought. After so much work, it would be a tragedy to undermine the deployment of the evidence before an appropriate and properly constituted court of law that was able to try the case fairly and reach the right conclusion under the law, whatever that conclusion might be. The case is prepared so as to be readily presentable before a Scottish or United States court. That is the way in which it is prepared, and it would not be appropriate to try to deploy it elsewhere—before a tribunal or court whose constitution could not be compatible, under present law, with the way in which such matters are dealt with in Scotland.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned forensic evidence, particularly that relating to the mechanism that was used to detonate the bomb. I can only repeat what has been said in successive answers in the House to the same question: I will not, cannot and should not be drawn into commenting on any of the evidence held by the Scottish authorities that forms part of the prosecution's case. Were I to do so, it would jeopardise the value of the evidence in the trial, which would be in the interest of no one seeking justice.
    I confirm again that the forensic examination in the investigation was carried out by the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment. The prosecution and investigating authorities are careful not to be drawn into disclosures about the evidence, and stories that hon. Members may have read in books or the media are pure speculation. It is absolutely right for the Government and the prosecuting authorities to rely on the evidence that we have.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would the Minister agree to a proper independent investigation by agreed forensic experts?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment is not either independent or reliable. If he is, I must take the strongest issue with him. I am certainly not prepared to accept such a challenge to that establishment. If he can provide me with the slightest evidence that on occasion its evidence has been challengeable in that way, I will investigate, but I do not believe that it is possible. It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman should make such an allegation in the House when I do not believe for a moment that he has any evidence to back it up.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the post-Chernobyl restricted areas have now been designated free from contamination to the extent that animals originating there are deemed fit for human consumption. [13680]

  Mrs. Browning
  Approximately 94 per cent. of the original area in England which was restricted in 1986 as a result of the Chernobyl accident is now free from contamination such that the animals originating there are totally free from all controls and are fit for human consumption.

  In addition, approximately half of the remaining restricted area has been found to be free from contamination but is currently being held under controls due to the open nature of the land and the presence of common grazing.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the development of the research programme on the control of sheep scab and the use of organophosphorus dips. [14420]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Department has just approved two research projects to investigate alternatives to chemicals such as organophosphorus dips for the control of sheep scab. These will run for three years and cost about £1.2 million. They will form a significant addition to the existing research programme and will be directed to developing and testing new approaches to the identification of possible sheep scab vaccines and identifying the most effective methods of application. Additionally the research will develop models to maximise the impact of future control strategies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his White Paper on changes to sentencing; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals on the prison population in England and Wales. [13280]

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to publish a White Paper in the spring setting out full details of the Government's proposals on sentencing, including our assessment of their implications for the prison population.

  Law on Manslaughter (Defective Vehicles)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to clarify the law relating to manslaughter to enable operators of seriously defective vehicles which subsequently kill to be liable to charges for serious offences. [13274]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Law Commission is examining the issue of corporate liability for manslaughter as part of its review of the law on involuntary manslaughter. The Government will consider whether to clarify the law in this area in the light of the commission's final report.

  Stop and Search Statistics
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were stopped and searched by police forces in England and Wales during(a) 1989 and (b) 1994 and were subsequently (i) arrested, (ii) cautioned and (iii) charged, broken down by ethnic background; [13464]

  (2) how many persons who were stopped and searched since 1989 by police forces in England and Wales and subsequently charged, were convicted, breaking down the figures by ethnicity and gender; [13454]

  (3) how many of those persons who were stopped and searched since 1989 by the Metropolitan police in England and Wales and subsequently charged, were convicted, breaking down the figures by ethnicity and gender; [13455]

  (4) how many persons were stopped and searched by the Metropolitan police in England and Wales during (a) 1989 and (b) 1994, and were subsequently (i) arrested, (ii) cautioned and (iii) charged, broken down by ethnic background. [13463]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her question on 5 December 1995 Official Report, column 212.

  Details of the ethnic group of those stopped and searched during 1994–95 will be available shortly.

  Police Cautions (Burglary)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, how many offenders cautioned each year since 1991 had already been cautioned on two or more occasions. [13431]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not routinely collected. The table below shows results from special studies of those cautioned for indictable offences in one week in each of 1991 and 1994 in England and Wales.

  Persons cautioned in study week, 1991 and 1994

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Number of previous cations

  1991

  1994

  None

  80

  85

  One

  12

  10

  Two or more

  8

  5

  Prisons (Compensation and Damages Payments)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the past 10 years payments for(a) compensation and (b) damages with or without the admission of liability, have been offered by his Department to individuals as a result of disturbances in Her Majesty's prisons; if he will list the number of payments and amounts involved on each occasion; and how many other such claims have been made but refused. [13895]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter for prisons in England and Wales has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given. Responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland and Scotland is a matter for the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland respectively.

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about payments for compensation and damages which have been made to individuals following disturbances in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons (Drugs Tests)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on(a) staff and (b) prisoners occurred before and after mandatory drugs testing took place in (i) February to April, (ii) May to June and (iii) August to October in (1) 1993, (2) 1994 and (3) 1995 and (iv) November to January in (4) 1993–94, (5) 1994–95 and (6) 1995–96. [13898]

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

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of assaults on staff and prisoners for specific periods back to 1993.

  Mandatory drug testing began in eight pilot establishments in February 1995. A phased programme to introduce it to all remaining establishments began in September 1995, with 23 establishments performing mandatory drug testing by the end of October and 94 by the end of January 1996.

  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Number of proven adjudications for assaults1 prison service establishments, February 1993—January 1996

  England and Wales

  Staff/others

  Prisoners

  Total

  February 1993—April 1993

  629

  534

  1,163

  May 1993—June 1993

  513

  372

  885

  August 1993—October 1993

  788

  666

  1,454

  November 1993—January 1994

  920

  638

  1,558

  February 1994—April 1994

  815

  559

  1,374

  May 1994—June 1994

  541

  389

  930

  August 1994—October 1994

  883

  640

  1,523

  184

  Number of proven adjudications for assaults1 in prison service establishments, February 1993—January 1996

  England and Wales

  Staff/others

  Prisoners

  Total

  November 1994—January 19952

  801

  624

  1,425

  February 1995—April 19952

  785

  611

  1,396

  May 1995—June 19952

  497

  444

  941

  August 1995—October 19952

  729

  681

  1,410

  November 1995—January 19962

  707

  614

  1,321

  1 Includes attempting, inciting and assisting in an assault.

  2 Provisional information.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals there were in respect of mandatory drugs testings in prisons in England and Wales; how many urine samples were provided; of those, how many proved positive for(a) cannabis only, (b) class A drugs only and (c) cannabis and class A drugs; how many days' loss of remission there were consequent on refusals; and how many days' loss of remission there were consequent on positive urine tests for (i) February to April, (ii) May to June, (iii) August to October and (iv) November 1995 to January 1996. [13897]

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

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director Genera! from the office, to reply to your recent Question about mandatory drug testing.

  Between February and November 1995 some 4961 drug screening tests were carried out under the mandatory drug testing programme. Analysis of results from eight pilot prisons over an eight month period show that of those prisoners tested at random. 30.6% tested positive for cannabis while 3.6% tested positive for Class A drugs. Information on the numbers testing positive for both cannabis and Class A drugs is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The attached table shows the number of refusals to provide a sample and the number of addition days added both as a consequence of refusals and as a result of positive urine tests for the periods requested.

  Number of proven adjudications and punishments of unsuspended additional days for drug offences

  Number of offences

  Number of days awarded

  Average number of days

  Total number of days

  Unauthorised use1

  February to April 1995

  102

  81

  5

  439

  May to June 1995

  180

  105

  9

  963

  August to October 1995

  526

  324

  11

  3,525

  November 1995 to January 1996

  2,007

  1,298

  12

  15,792

  185

  Number of proven adjudications and punishments of unsuspended additional days for drug offences

  Number of offences

  Number of days awarded

  Average number of days

  Total number of days

  Refusal to provide a sample1

  February to April 1995

  15

  12

  11

  127

  May to June 1995

  29

  16

  12

  191

  August to October 1995

  32

  19

  15

  290

  November 1995 to January 1996

  184

  98

  23

  2,225

  1 Includes attempting, inciting and assisting. All figures in these tables are based on provisional information.

  The rising numbers of both offences are linked to an increase in establishments performing mandatory drug tests from eight between February and June, to 23 by the end of October and 94 by the end of January.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the public safety radio communications project. [13778]

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is responsible for managing the public safety radio communications project in close co-operation with representatives of the police and fire services. The procurement, which will be based on the private finance initiative, was formally launched with the appearance of a notice to potential suppliers in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 23 January 1996.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial and manpower resources he is making available to the public safety radio communications project. [13779]

  Mr. Maclean
  The public safety radio communications project will employ the equivalent of 19 officers plus consultants in 1996–97 at a cost of approximately £1 million. A substantial sum of money, which is commercially confidential, has been put aside as a contribution to the cost of project definition studies, contracts for which are currently the subject of a European-wide procurement exercise.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable was originally planned for the public safety radio communications project and what is the present timetable. [13780]

  Mr. Maclean
  The implementation of new radio communications systems for the police service in England and Wales, through the public safety radio communications project, is expected to be completed by 2003. This was the original timetable and has not changed.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce who will be deputy-chairman of the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales. [14390]
  186
  Mr. Sackville
  The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. Justice Maurice Kay to serve as the deputy chairman of the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales. This appointment is effective until 31 December 1999.

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the outcome of the prior options study of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar. [14391]

  Mr. Sackville
  The study has concluded that there is still a need for the controls provided by the Data Protection Act 1984, and that these should continue to be performed by the Data Protection Registrar as an independent public body. I am placing a copy of the report of the study in the Library.

TREASURY

  Flat Rate Income Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a range of estimates on how a flat rate income tax could operate in the United Kingdom; [12609]

  (2) what would be the estimated yield in a full year from a flat rate income tax if (a) the first (i) £7,000 and (ii) £10,000 of each taxpayers income was exempted from tax, (b) no tax allowances or deductions were allowed against income other then in (a) and (c) the income tax rates on the income above the levels in (a) were (1) 10 per cent., (2) 15 per cent. and (3) 20 per cent. [12608]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table. These estimates include the abolition of mortgage interest relief and tax relief on employees' contributions to occupational and personal pension schemes. Adjustments have also been made to allow for the abolition of reliefs for TESSAs, PEPs, profit-related pay, national savings certificates, employee share schemes and charitable giving.

  The estimates do not take into account the substantial behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes nor do they allow for any subsequent changes to the tax system, such as changes to tax relief on employers' contributions to pension schemes or relief for investment income in pension funds. It is assumed that employers' and employees' national insurance contributions would remain as at present.

  Estimates full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels (£ billion)

  Flat rate of income tax

  Income exempt from tax (£)

  10 per cent.

  15 per cent.

  20 per cent.

  7,000

  45

  32

  18

  10,000

  51

  40

  29

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been allocated to each country in the European Union to publicise the benefits of a single European currency. [12602]
  187
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Commission is organising publicity for the single currency, taking into account the circumstances in each member state. Community spending is not allocated on a member state basis. The Commission has confirmed that no publicity campaign promoting the single currency will be launched in the UK.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Customs and Excise (London Airports)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action he is taking in connection with the Customs and Excise department at London airports, following the investigation by the adjudicator's office into the case of Dr. A. Molnar of Warwick; [13576]

  (2) how many Customs and Excise officials have been dismissed or moved to other posts, following the investigation carried out into the strip and search of Dr. A. Molnar of Warwick at Gatwick airport on 23 March 1995; [13577]

  (3) if the recommendation from the adjudicator's office that a number of aspects of current procedures by Customs and Excise officers at London airports should be reviewed has been implemented. [13575]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The adjudicator's recommendations were received by customs on 16 January and are currently being considered by senior customs managers. The adjudicator found that the search of Dr. Molnar was not unreasonable. She recommended that some procedural aspects, including the handling of the complaint, should be reviewed. This is being done and the adjudicator will be informed of the outcome of the review. The adjudicator's findings do not justify the dismissal or transfer of any officials concerned in the case.

  Banking and Financial Dealings Act
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning possible amendments to schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 to Scotland; and what reply he has given. [13816]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Industrial and Provident Societies) Order 1996. [13204]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Smaller societies should save an estimated £3 million a year from the increase in the threshold for a full, professional annual audit.

  The longer period within which accounts can be prepared should also lead to savings, but these are more difficult to quantify.

  EU Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Central Statistical Office forms which have been replaced by forms issued under requirements of the European Community. [13641]

  Mrs. Knight
  In January 1993 the quarterly and annual sales of industry inquires were replaced by the quarterly and annual PRODCOM inquiries. These inquiries are conducted under a Council regulation approved in 1991 to harmonise statistics on products throughout the EU. The product data are broadly comparable with external trade statistics at a detailed level.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the current year what would be the savings in revenue if pension contributions were allowed at the standard rate only. [12962]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: The estimated full-year yield of restricting relief from pension contributions to the basic rate at 1996–97 income levels would be about £790 million. This is based on a projection of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes and other survey data in line with assumptions in the Budget forecast. It does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes. The yield represents about 8 per cent. of the total cost of reliefs for pension schemes.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the receipts for advance corporation tax for each of the last 36 months; and what estimate he has made of the total ACT receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [13749]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: Receipts of ACT in 1994–95 were £8.1 billion, and for 1995–96 were forecast at the time of the 1995 Budget to be £9.9 billion. Receipts for each of the last 36 months are as follows:

  £ million

  1993

  1994

  1995

  January

  2,913

  2,446

  2,772

  February

  90

  47

  94

  March

  87

  84

  100

  April

  1,482

  1,497

  1,707

  May

  146

  100

  77

  June

  48

  62

  62

  July

  1,906

  1,467

  1,750

  August

  55

  91

  59

  September

  87

  85

  122

  October

  1,481

  1,635

  1,815

  November

  24

  54

  104

  December

  10

  129

  1107

  Note:

  The rate of advance corporation tax was reduced from 25 per cent. to 22½ per cent. for 1993–94 and to 20 per cent. from 1994–95.

  1 Provisional.

  Source:

  "Financial Statistics" table 2.1C.
  189
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 25 June 1993,Official Report, column 327, on corporation tax. [13761]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: Latest available figures for turnover, profit before tax, and corporation tax liability of the 25 largest profitable United Kingdom companies and company groups chosen on the basis of turnover in their 1994 accounts are as follows:

  Turnover1 £ billion

  Profit before tax1 £ billion

  Corporation tax liability2 £ billion

  At current prices

  1989

  235

  24

  3.1

  1990

  257

  26

  3.1

  1991

  258

  20

  2.8

  1992

  259

  18

  2.8

  1993

  283

  20

  2.7

  1994

  295

  24

  3—

  At constant 1987 prices

  1989

  208

  21

  2.8

  1990

  208

  21

  2.5

  1991

  197

  15

  2.1

  1992

  190

  14

  2.1

  1993

  205

  14

  2.0

  1994

  208

  17

  3—

  1 World-wide activity reported in published accounts.

  2 After relief for foreign tax.

  3 Not yet available.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) of 28 June 1993,Official Report, column 327, on corporation tax repayments. [13762]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Corporation tax repayments

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1992–93

  3,248

  1993–94

  3,071

  1994–95

  2,696

  1995–961

  2,860

  1 Provisional estimate.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will quantify the tax losses which will be made available to Railtrack on privatisation. [13757]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: Details of the tax affairs of identified taxpayers are confidential.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will quantify the tax losses which will be made available to British Coal on privatisation. [13756]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: Details of the tax affairs of identified taxpayers are confidential.

  Tax Relief (Vocational Training)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people claimed tax relief for vocational training for(a) NVQ and (b) SVQ; and what estimate he has made of how many people will claim relief for other qualifications included under training relief measures in the Budget. [13758]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The number of people claiming vocation training relief in 1995–96 is estimated at 200,000. A breakdown of this figure between those taking courses that qualify towards national vocational qualifications or Scottish vocational qualifications is not available.

  It is estimated that up to an additional 20,000 people will claim vocational training relief as a result of the extension to the relief announced in the Budget.

  Unemployed Diabetics
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of diabetics are unemployed; and what percentage lose their jobs following diagnosis. [13594]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: Information is available from the labour force survey about the number of people of working age who, in response to the survey, say that they have a health problem or disability expected to last for more than a year which affects the kind of paid work they can do. In the summer—June to August—1995, 234,000 people among this group said they had diabetes and, of these, 7 per cent. were unemployed on the International Labour Organisation definition.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the capital cost threshold for a private finance initiative scheme at which his Department becomes involved. [13970]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: It is Government policy that the Treasury will not approve any capital projects unless private finance options have been explored, though not necessarily tested in the market place. The level of delegated authority below which Treasury approval is not required is a matter for each Department. There is no set threshold.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue maintains separate records of class 1 and class 1A contributions collected on behalf of the Contributions Agency. [13745]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The Inland Revenue does not maintain its own separate records of class 1 and class 1A contributions collected on behalf of the Contributions Agency.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criminal incidents since 1985, other than the
  191
  blowing up of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, for which Her Majesty's Government attribute responsibility to Libya. [14047]

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that Libya was responsible for the murder of a number of Libyan dissidents, mainly in the late 1980s, including some in Europe, but none in Britain.

  We also believe that Libya may have been involved in other criminal incidents outside the UK, including the bombing of a UTA flight in September 1989. It would not be appropriate to provide further detail.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11364]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11453]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11456]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister(a) took the decision which set the terms of reference for the Scott inquiry, (b) took the decision to appoint Sir Richard Scott to head the inquiry and (c) took the decision to establish the Scott inquiry. [13994]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer Tuesday 6 February 1996]: The Government set up the inquiry, as I set out in my parliamentary answer on 16 November 1992, Official Report, column 74–75.
  192
  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will act upon recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott's forthcoming report. [13992]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The Government will consider carefully any recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Refugee Camps, Africa
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list how many UN refugee camps there are currently in Africa; how many refugees are in each camp; what were the figures three years ago; and if he will make a statement. [13620]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that, at 31 December 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 11.8 million refugees in Africa. The corresponding figure at 31 December 1992 was 5.4 million. Precise information on the population of individual camps is not available.

  North Korea
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the appeals by the World Food Programme and the Food and Agricultural Organisation for assistance in alleviating the famine in North Korea; what aid and assistance the British Government have offered those agencies; and if he will make a statement. [13951]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our policy is to give humanitarian aid where there is a need. We have already donated £150,000 to the flood relief efforts of the United Nations. What is necessary now is to ascertain the scope of the problem in North Korea.

  We are therefore funding a secondment to the World Food Programme operation in North Korea, at its request, of two nutritionists from the Save the Children Fund. They will work to and support the WFP country director there. The secondment begins this week.

WALES

  Schools (Security)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to improve security in primary and secondary schools. [12422]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has established a working group to advise urgently on what should be done to improve security in and around schools. We shall consider the recommendations made by the group.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultants there are specialising in the treatment of osteoporosis in each health authority in Wales. [12993]
  193
  Mr. Richards
  Information relating to the number of consultants working in the NHS in Wales is collected centrally on the basis of specialties recognised by the royal colleges. Osteoporosis is not one of these recognised specialties and the information requested is not available.

  Elderly People (Warmth and Safety)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make grants available for older people to undertake the repairs and improvements needed to make homes warm, safe and secure. [13182]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Grants are already available under the home renovation grant arrangements and the home energy efficiency scheme. The new home repair assistance in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill would replace minor works assistance and be of particular help to older people.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning warmth and energy efficiency for elderly people. [13184]

  Mr. Richards
  There are a number of measures in place to help pensioners in Wales.

  The Welsh Office's annual "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, run in conjunction with Age Concern Cymru, advises vulnerable people how to minimise the risks of cold weather and what help is available.

  The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for basic insulation measures to people aged over 60, whether they rent, own or are buying their own homes. The number of homes in Wales insulated in 1994–95 under the HEES was 20,808 at a cost of around £3.3 million. In 1995–96 an estimated 29,750 homes in Wales will benefit at a cost of some £4.8 million.

  As at 1 February 1996, an estimated 5,546,795 cold weather payments, at an estimated cost of £47,147,754, have been issued.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to encourage the building of homes at affordable rents by the new unitary authorities; [13180]

  (2) if he will make available moneys to the new unitary authorities for building homes for older people with special needs and for those on low income. [13181]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing associations are now the main providers of new affordable rented homes, including homes for those with special needs. The Welsh Office is currently discussing with the shadow authorities the opportunities presented by the Housing Bill. The Bill allows for the setting up of local housing companies as registered landlords, which could include board members from the relevant unitary authority to undertake the repair and building of homes.

  Electricity Cables
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to require provision of underground main electricity supply cables in areas likely to be 194
  particularly affected by adverse weather conditions; and if he will make a statement. [13259]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  General Practitioners (Patient Lists)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been formally removed from registration with their local general practitioners in each of the past five years. [13353]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Oil and Gas Licences, Cardigan Bay
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research has been undertaken or commissioned by his Department to ascertain the extent to which licensed discharge associated oil and gas licences in Cardigan bay will add to the pollutant load in the bay; and if he will place copies of the relevant research documents in the Library. [12411]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) loans, (b) grants and (c) other payments in excess of £100,000 which have been made in each of the last five years by the Welsh Office to (i) Gateway, (ii) Safeway, (iii) Waitrose, (iv) Morrisons, (v) Kwiksave, (vi) Sainsburys, (vii) Asda and (viii) Spar (UK) Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [13704]

  Mr. Hague
  There were none.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Building Control
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations have responded to the draft circular "Local Authority Building Control and Related Services-Approved Inspectors-Uncompetitive Practices"; which organisations supported the publication of the circular; which organisations advised against its publication; and if he will arrange for the responses to be placed in the Library. [12521]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This was a limited consultation rather than a full public consultation, and in such cases it is not the Department's normal practice to make the responses public by placing them in the Library of the House. Therefore, no statement was made in the consultation letter about publication of the responses, and consultees were not asked whether they wished their replies to be kept confidential. I am not prepared to put the responses in the Library.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National House Building Council about the draft circular "Local Authority Building Control and Related Services-Approved Inspectors-Uncompetitive Practices". [12523]
  195
  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has not discussed this circular with the chairman of the National House Building Council.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what complaints he has received about alleged uncompetitive practices in the provision of building control services by local authorities in the last three years; and if he has verified the allegations with the authorities concerned. [12522]

  Mr. Jones
  I have received a number of complaints about alleged uncompetitive practices in the provision of building control services in the last three years. They were made in strict confidence, and undertakings were given that this would not be breached.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities and other bodies whose bids for single regeneration budget moneys were unsuccessful in both year one and year two. [13140]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Listed below, by region, are the names of the local authorities and other bodies who were the bidders for support from the single regeneration budget challenge fund that were unsuccessful in both year one and year two. It should be noted that in many cases the content of the individual bid and the composition of the partnership submitting it were not identical. A number of the organisations listed were also members of partnerships that were successful in round two.

  Region and Lead Bidder

  South-east

  Kent TEC

  Shepway District Council

  Eastern

  Cambridgeshire TEC

  Harlow DC

  Huntingdonshire DC

  Mid Norfolk Railway Group

  Southend BC

  Stevenage BC

  Waveney DC

  South West

  Wiltshire CC

  North Devon DC

  Exeter Business Forum

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  Cheltenham BC

  Thamesdown BC

  Wiltshire TEC

  Exeter Homes Committee

  WESTEC

  West Midlands

  Worcester CC

  West Midlands European Centre Ltd.

  Roapp Hall Ltd.

  North-west

  Midlands Refugee Council

  Bury MBC

  Stockport Partnership for Urban Regeneration

  Cumbria TEC

  196

  Ribble Valley BC

  Nissim and Associates

  VISIONS Community Designs Ltd.

  Gorton Community Forum

  Blackstone Edge Outdoor Pursuits and Leisure Centre

  Warrington BC

  Merseyside

  Knowsley MBC

  Wirral MBC

  London

  Westminster CC

  Cephas Consultancy Services Ltd.

  London Borough of Brent

  Bromley by Bow Centre

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Borough of Havering

  London Borough of Hounslow

  The College of North West London

  North-east

  Chester le Street DC

  Darlington BC

  Northumberland CC

  Valley Watch

  East Midlands

  East Midlands Offender Employment Consortium

  Amber Valley BC East Lindsey DC

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  None

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in rank order the second round single regeneration budget bids showing where each local authorities fell in the index of deprivation(a) at local authority level, (b) by census enumeration districts and (c) by the average score of the worst three wards. [13141]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Water Abstraction Licensing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to simplify the system of water abstraction licensing. [13673]

  Mr. Clappison
  A joint DOE and Welsh Office consultation paper, "Proposed amendments to the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Reservoirs Act 1975", was issued in November 1993. It included plans to simplify the system of water abstraction licensing. A number of these proposals were included with the Environment Act 1995, while those not covered by that Act are being considered under deregulation procedures available under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Education Authorities (Spending)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local education authorities in England spent below their capping limits in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and, in each case, by how much in cash and percentage of total spending. [13443]
  197
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local education authorities which budgeted by more than £50,000 below their capping limits in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  (a) 1994–95

  £ million

  Percentage of 1994–95 Budget requirement

  City of London

  0.142

  0.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1.553

  1.1

  Lambeth

  9.207

  2.9

  Southwark

  2.706

  1.0

  Tower Hamlets

  1.324

  0.5

  Wandsworth

  14.681

  6.2

  Westminster

  25.496

  13.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.513

  0.4

  Bexley

  2.848

  1.9

  Brent

  8.729

  3.5

  Bromley

  9.095

  5.2

  Croydon

  3.844

  1.6

  Ealing

  13.974

  5.6

  Enfield

  0.121

  0.1

  Harrow

  0.299

  0.2

  Havering

  3.821

  2.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  2.778

  3.1

  Redbridge

  3.040

  1.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.399

  0.4

  Trafford

  2.491

  1.7

  Sandwell

  3.868

  1.6

  Solihull

  2.553

  2.1

  Wolverhampton

  6.222

  3.0

  Bradford

  8.299

  2.1

  Buckinghamshire

  1.001

  0.2

  Cheshire

  0.105

  0.02

  Hampshire

  20.860

  2.3

  West Sussex

  4.703

  1.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0.089

  3.7

  (b) 1995–96

  £ million

  Percentage of 1995–96 budget requirement

  City of London

  0.936

  0.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3.178

  2.2

  Lambeth

  8.848

  2.9

  Westminster

  29.011

  13.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.425

  0.3

  Brent

  18.368

  7.9

  Bromley

  8.202

  4.4

  Croydon

  0.099

  0.04

  Ealing

  11.915

  5.0

  Kirklees

  4.764

  1.7

  Cheshire

  0.150

  0.03

  Essex

  8.876

  1.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0.164

  6.2

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Commission for the New Towns. [13893]
  198
  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are considering what should be the arrangements from March 1998. Suitable enabling provisions are included in part V of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill.

  Ebbsfleet New Town
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a new town at Ebbsfleet; and if he will make a statement. [14041]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The regional planning guidance for the Thames gateway—the Thames gateway planning framework, RPG9a—identifies Kent Thames-side, including the Ebbsfleet valley, and Stratford and the royal docks in east London, as the two main locations within the area where substantial growth can be expected. It is for the market to respond to these development opportunities. I understand that an application for outline planning permission for a mixed housing and commercial development on a 176 hectare—435 acre—site adjoining the proposed Ebbsfleet international and domestic channel tunnel rail link station has recently been submitted jointly to Dartford and Gravesham borough councils.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Cardigan Bay
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking(a) to identify the source of polychlorinated biphenyls recently found at high levels in cetaecan carcases washed up in Cardigan bay and (b) to eliminate polychlorinated biphenyls from the environment of Cardigan bay. [12410]

  Mr. Clappison
  Long use of PCBs before the ban of production and new use in this country in 1986 means that they still remain at detectable levels within flora and fauna through deposition and food chains in all areas. Investigations of contaminants in stranded cetaceans in Great Britain since 1990 have included 10 carcases at Cardigan bay in which levels of PCBs were comparatively high but similar to those found elsewhere.

  Within further attempts to reduce and eliminate PCBs, the Government will be issuing an action plan very shortly, reflecting consultations on proposals to eliminate all identifiable holdings of PCBs by the end of 1999.

  River Kennet
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will propose the River Kennet as a special area of conservation. [12404]

  Mr. Clappison
  The statutory nature conservation agencies are currently considering the representations which have been made during consultation for additions to the list of possible special areas of conservation. The River Kennet is included in these considerations and the agencies will advise in due course as to any additional sites which could qualify as possible SACs.

  Gas Safety
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the Health and Safety Executive has been contacted by tenants with concerns about the safety of gas appliances since the introduction of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994; and how many visits it has made to premises. [13705]
  199
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many offences have been committed under section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in relation to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 since their introduction. [13706]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Between 31 October 1994, when the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations came into force, and 31 March 1995, the latest date for which information is readily available, the Health and Safety Executive secured two1 convictions under the regulations.

  Note:

  1 Provisional.

  Registration area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Barking and Dagenham

  16

  16

  13

  33

  25

  11

  Barnet

  145

  241

  545

  260

  226

  152

  Bexley

  38

  49

  115

  32

  92

  28

  Brent

  233

  170

  293

  359

  223

  297

  Bromley

  78

  108

  199

  101

  122

  66

  City

  0

  14

  0

  11

  1

  0

  Camden

  263

  282

  287

  392

  269

  200

  Croydon

  43

  38

  92

  95

  91

  106

  Ealing

  62

  170

  150

  165

  149

  105

  Enfield

  59

  70

  97

  103

  81

  95

  Greenwich

  43

  45

  70

  68

  38

  64

  Hackney

  160

  118

  154

  347

  196

  170

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  167

  519

  245

  297

  263

  186

  Haringey

  159

  86

  141

  125

  109

  173

  Harrow

  45

  124

  102

  140

  52

  76

  Havering

  10

  29

  81

  56

  33

  49

  Hillingdon

  11

  30

  39

  32

  98

  65

  Hounslow

  75

  34

  134

  78

  102

  117

  Islington

  72

  124

  268

  98

  94

  59

  Kensington and Chelsea

  730

  811

  315

  368

  535

  420

  Kingston upon Thames

  65

  36

  51

  100

  73

  36

  Lambeth

  370

  566

  870

  430

  347

  202

  Lewisham

  143

  97

  144

  198

  175

  192

  Merton

  57

  50

  148

  101

  94

  70

  Newham

  87

  213

  192

  155

  220

  174

  Redbridge

  77

  143

  97

  150

  92

  166

  Richmond on Thames

  32

  83

  40

  116

  108

  65

  Southwark

  134

  126

  209

  162

  414

  90

  Sutton

  169

  61

  173

  92

  67

  71

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  70

  383

  282

  145

  153

  Waltham Forest

  150

  348

  247

  318

  243

  224

  Wandsworth

  304

  631

  559

  339

  241

  283

  Westminster

  306

  692

  1,263

  744

  584

  324

  Avon

  230

  257

  269

  146

  190

  116

  Bedfordshire

  161

  42

  106

  88

  80

  39

  Berkshire

  83

  119

  110

  112

  107

  52

  Buckinghamshire

  135

  94

  146

  42

  106

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  81

  116

  52

  79

  47

  44

  Cheshire

  156

  1,346

  803

  112

  180

  285

  Cleveland

  174

  135

  105

  114

  387

  327

  Cornwall

  51

  91

  40

  42

  51

  31

  Cumbria

  70

  87

  78

  87

  31

  147

  Derbyshire

  234

  239

  151

  464

  202

  232

  Devon

  280

  182

  143

  286

  215

  150

  Dorset

  157

  174

  181

  309

  121

  107

  Durham

  52

  51

  17

  139

  242

  98

  East Sussex

  159

  117

  424

  258

  126

  138

  Essex

  185

  120

  215

  382

  207

  115

  Gloucestershire

  229

  169

  141

  60

  37

  36

  Greater Manchester

  1,253

  900

  779

  976

  735

  717

  Hampshire

  315

  362

  372

  426

  239

  242

  Hereford and Worcester

  179

  154

  69

  50

  37

  49

  Hertfordshire

  55

  92

  113

  97

  91

  123

  Rents
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals were made by(a) tenants and (b) landlords against rent officers' determinations of rent broken down into secure tenants of housing associations and regulated tenants of private landlords by rent office district. [13707]

  Mr. Clappison
  Rent assessment committees do not record for statistical purposes whether the appellant against a rent officer determination is the landlord or the tenant. Nor do they distinguish between secure tenants of housing associations and regulated private tenants. Statistics are available for the total number of registered fair rent appeal cases dealt with by rent assessment committees by rent regulation area. A table giving figures for each of the last six years is given:
  201

  Registration area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Humberside

  351

  448

  356

  226

  87

  123

  Isle of Wight

  74

  26

  30

  12

  30

  24

  Kent

  244

  337

  456

  253

  295

  97

  Lancashire

  214

  121

  176

  733

  452

  530

  Leicestershire

  299

  106

  286

  97

  209

  61

  Lincolnshire

  92

  74

  24

  67

  76

  48

  Merseyside

  3,065

  1,767

  3,492

  1,993

  1,169

  1,026

  Norfolk

  122

  106

  88

  97

  139

  104

  Northumberland

  162

  68

  81

  74

  124

  27

  Northamptonshire

  189

  35

  81

  57

  18

  61

  North Yorkshire

  58

  68

  153

  133

  84

  77

  Nottinghamshire

  747

  533

  319

  512

  259

  259

  Oxfordshire

  47

  62

  38

  368

  104

  50

  Shropshire

  64

  24

  22

  47

  19

  62

  Somerset

  24

  28

  18

  46

  32

  36

  South Yorkshire

  237

  222

  316

  213

  271

  294

  Staffordshire

  462

  250

  282

  297

  302

  230

  Suffolk

  94

  56

  54

  102

  68

  98

  Surrey

  98

  99

  292

  146

  186

  159

  Tyne and Wear

  140

  180

  223

  384

  363

  181

  Warwickshire

  172

  76

  161

  103

  111

  62

  West Midlands

  721

  1,243

  647

  797

  436

  856

  West Sussex

  53

  300

  132

  146

  162

  145

  West Yorkshire

  564

  460

  504

  609

  574

  489

  Wiltshire

  95

  105

  33

  73

  36

  25

  16,961

  17,835

  20,294

  18,219

  14,639

  12,708

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the weekly rate of(a) requests for information and (b) applications for grants under the home energy efficiency scheme in (i) December 1994, (ii) January 1995, (iii) December 1995 and (iv) January 1996; [13975]

  (2) how many applications for grants under the home energy efficiency scheme have been received in the current financial year to the latest available date. [13976]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information is collected on a monthly basis, and is as follows:

  Month

  Requests for information

  Grant applications

  December 1994

  23,519

  19,479

  January 1995

  25,303

  33,774

  December 1995

  22,277

  44,867

  January 1996

  36,089

  84,723

  Between 1 April 1995 and 2 February 1996, 536,669 applications for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme were made.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the names of the authorities to be included in the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [14299]

  Mr. Curry
  I am today announcing the names of the five authorities that will be able to proceed, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, with proposals to transfer their housing stock to private sector 202
  landlords in 1996–97. The programme of large-scale voluntary transfers will comprise almost 21,000 dwellings valued at £172 million.

  This reflects the Government's commitment to a continuing programme of transfers as a means of generating private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing and to increase diversity and choice for tenants.

  The five authorities which have successfully gained a place on the programme, together with the intended recipient housing associations are as follows:

  (a) Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council (2,750 dwellings) to Berwick Housing Associations;

  (b) Lichfield district council (4,955 dwellings) to Lichfield District Housing Association;

  (c) South Staffordshire district council (5,354 dwellings) to South Staffordshire Housing Association;

  (d) Stratford-on-Avon district council (5,800 dwellings) to South Warwickshire Housing Association;

  (e) West Wiltshire district council (1,958 dwellings) to West Wiltshire Housing Society.

  To date, 45 authorities have disposed of all or part of their stock to new landlords and seven more are due to do so by the end of this financial year. In addition to the five authorities listed above, other authorities are working up proposals to transfer. There will be opportunities to add them to the 1996 programme if they make good progress with their proposals over the coming months.

  The Government are committed to a continuing programme of transfers and to extending the benefits of transfer to urban and non-traditional housing. We also

  203
  intend to widen the range of recipient landlords from traditional housing associations to local housing companies, subject to Parliament approving the Housing Bill, and to private sector companies, subject to future legislation. Transfers will remain voluntary and require tenant support, as they do now.

  Environmental Action Fund
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to distribute the environmental action fund for 1996–97. [14419]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have today placed in the Library of the House details of the distribution of environmental action fund for 1996–97: 126 grants in 1996–97 totalling more than £4 million will be made available. Matching funding requirements will ensure that as much again from private sources is channelled into environmental action. I am also increasing the amount ring-fenced for small community projects to £300,000.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of local government in Hereford and Worcester; and when he expects to lay the order for the unitary authority of Herefordshire before Parliament. [13593]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: We have accepted the Local Government Commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for Herefordshire on its historic boundaries. We hope to make an announcement soon on the timing of the reorganisation.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for 1995–96(a) to date and (b) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11372]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure on publicity by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's office and the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the Buying Agency, is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Cabinet Office

  Advertising

  5,000

  60,300

  Press and public relations

  1,085,400

  1,156,300

  Other publicity

  260,700

  406,300

  Total Cabinet Office (including NDPBs)

  1,351,100

  1,622,900

  204

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Executive agencies (excluding HMSO and TBA)

  Advertising

  119,900

  167,200

  Press and public relations

  13,100

  37,800

  Other publicity

  0

  0

  Total executive agencies

  133,000

  205,000

  Expenditure by HMSO and the Buying Agency, which have a different accounting year, is as follows:

  1993 £

  1994 £

  1995 £

  HMSO and TBA

  Advertising

  1,494,000

  1,776,000

  2,297,700

  Press and public relations

  16,000

  8,000

  18,200

  Other publicity

  872,000

  876,000

  1,062,000

  Total HMSO and TBA

  2,382,000

  2,660,000

  3,377,900

  Details of expenditure in earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [11500]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure by the Cabinet Office including the Prime Minister's office and the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding HMSO and the Buying Agency, on hospitality and entertainment was £62,100 in 1993–94, and £70,300 in 1994–95.

  Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by HMSO and the Buying Agency, both of which have a calendar-based accounting year, was £72,000 in 1993, £105,000 in 1994 and £97,000 in 1995. This includes expenditure on book launches and associated costs.

  Details of expenditure in earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [11507]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's office and the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding HMSO and the Buying Agency, on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses was £1,178,000 in 1993–94, and £1,636,500 in 1994–95.
  205
  Expenditure on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses by HMSO and the Buying Agency, both of which have a calendar-based accounting year, was £1,539,000 in 1993, £2,110,000 in 1994 and £2,136,000 in 1995.

  Details of expenditure in earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the proposed deregulation measures set out in "Deregulation—The Way Forward" have completed their periods of consultation with relevant interested parties and have been referred to the Deregulation Committee. [13671]

  Mr. Freeman
  Twenty-four of the 121 proposed deregulation measures set out in "Deregulation—The Way Forward" were identified as possible deregulation orders which might be referred to the Deregulation Committee. Of these, 13 have now been laid before the Committee and one, containing a number of measures to assist building societies, has been enacted.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the 10 most recent measures which he proposes to repeal by way of deregulation orders. [13672]

  Mr. Freeman
  The 10 most recent proposals for deregulation orders put to the deregulation committee are:

  The Deregulation (Resolutions of Private Companies) Order;

  The Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868) Order;

  The Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order;

  The Deregulation (Special Hours Certificates) Order;

  The Deregulation (Long Pull) Order;

  The Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order;

  The Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order;

  The Deregulation (Still Birth and Death Registration) Order,

  The Deregulation (Industrial and Provident Societies) Order;

  The Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order.

  15-year-old pupils in maintained schools in England. Schools in 1992, matched to those in 1993, 1994 and 1995

  School performance tables 1992

  GCSE average point score

  Percentage achieving:

  Number of schools

  Number of 15-year-olds

  5A*-C

  5A*-G

  1A*-G

  Group 1

  45.6

  70.7

  96.3

  98.2

  429

  60,081

  Group 2

  37.2

  48.1

  92.5

  97.4

  428

  71,539

  Group 3

  34.0

  41.3

  90.0

  96.7

  429

  70,639

  Group 4

  31.2

  35.2

  87.0

  95.5

  428

  67,672

  Group 5

  28.1

  28.3

  83.4

  94.0

  429

  69,179

  Group 6

  24.8

  22.4

  77.9

  91.2

  429

  62,885

  Group 7

  20.6

  15.1

  68.5

  87.0

  428

  58,183

  Group 8

  10.1

  4.5

  31.2

  69.5

  429

  29,071

  Group 9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.6

  428

  6,150

  Group 10

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  429

  1,657

  Total

  23.2

  26.6

  62.7

  73.1

  4,286

  497,056

  206
  Copies of all these proposals are available in the Vote Office of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  General Certificate of Secondary Education Results
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will(a) provide for 1992 the simple aggregate averages of (i) the GCSE average point scores, (ii) the percentages achieving at least 5 grades A* to C, (iii) the percentages achieving the least 5 grades A* to G and (iv) the percentages achieving at least one grade A* to G of the schools of each 10th group of all maintained schools with 15-year-old pupils when ranked by their average point scores (A* = 7), (b) the same averages for each of those 10 groups of the same schools in 1993, 1994 and 1995, so far as possible in the case of any closures, (c) the number of schools and the total number of 15-year-old pupils in each 10th group in each year and (d) the percentages of each 10th group of these schools that were inspected by Ofsted in the their annual inspections in 1993–94, in 1994–95 and in 1993–95. [12897]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following lists for maintained secondary schools in England for 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 shows (i) the average GCSE point scores, (ii) the average percentages achieving five or more GCSE grades A* to C, (iii) the average percentages achieving five or more GCSE grades A* to G, (v) the number of schools and (vi) the number of 15-year-old pupils in 10th group ranked by average GCSE point scores in 1992. These figures are based on the school performance tables published in the relevant years. The groups are based on schools that appeared in 1992 and these same schools have been followed through for 1993, 1994 and 1995. The group averages are simple averages which are not weighted by number of pupils in individual schools within a group.

  The number of schools inspected by Ofsted is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.
  207

  School performance tables 1993

  GCSE average point score

  Percentages achieving:

  Number of schools

  Number of 15-year-olds

  5A*—C

  5A*—G

  1 A*—G

  Group 1

  46.2

  71.1

  96.7

  98.5

  427

  60,263

  Group 2

  38.1

  49.9

  93

  97.6

  426

  69,830

  Group 3

  35.4

  43.6

  91.1

  97.1

  427

  68,233

  Group 4

  32.7

  37.6

  88.4

  96.4

  426

  64,857

  Group 5

  29.9

  31.6

  85.0

  94.7

  425

  66,168

  Group 6

  26.6

  25

  79.7

  92.2

  425

  58,815

  Group 7

  22.6

  17.7

  72.3

  89.0

  413

  53,215

  Group 8

  11.9

  6.4

  37.9

  69.7

  350

  25,612

  Group 9

  0.3

  0.1

  0.4

  4.4

  410

  5,510

  Group 10

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  2.3

  386

  1,733

  Total

  24.9

  29.1

  65.8

  75.2

  4,115

  474,236

  School performance tables 1994

  GCSE average point score

  Percentages achieving:

  Number of schools

  Number of 15-year-olds

  4A*-C

  5A*-G

  1 A*-G

  Group 1

  47.6

  73.2

  97.1

  98.4

  426

  61,614

  Group 2

  39.5

  52.5

  93.7

  97

  426

  71,638

  Group 3

  36.5

  46.1

  91.7

  96.3

  427

  70,403

  Group 4

  34.3

  40.2

  89.8

  95.5

  426

  66,510

  Group 5

  31.1

  33.2

  86.6

  93.7

  424

  66,821

  Group 6

  27.7

  26.8

  81.4

  90.8

  422

  60,435

  Group 7

  23.7

  19.8

  74.2

  86.9

  407

  53,430

  Group 8

  12.6

  7.5

  41.2

  69.6

  338

  24,769

  Group 9

  0.5

  0.2

  0.7

  7.5

  405

  5,602

  Group 10

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  2.7

  364

  1,673

  Total

  26.2

  31.1

  67.5

  75.3

  4,065

  482,895

  School performance tables 1995

  GCSE average point score

  Percentages achieving:

  Number of schools

  Number of 15-year-olds

  5A*-C

  5A*-G

  1 A*-G

  Group 1

  48.7

  74.1

  97.2

  98.5

  426

  66,857

  Group 2

  39.9

  53.0

  93.8

  96.8

  424

  77,493

  Group 3

  37.2

  46.6

  91.9

  96.1

  426

  76,343

  Group 4

  34.9

  41.1

  90.9

  95.3

  425

  72,660

  Group 5

  31.5

  33.4

  86.9

  93.6

  423

  73,193

  Group 6

  28.2

  27.6

  82

  90.5

  418

  64,953

  Group 7

  24.3

  20

  75.7

  87.2

  402

  57,459

  Group 8

  13.5

  7.7

  43

  69.0

  321

  25,780

  Group 9

  0.6

  0.3

  1

  8.2

  395

  5,894

  Group 10

  0.2

  0.0

  0.4

  3.5

  347

  1,721

  Total

  26.9

  31.9

  68.5

  75.7

  4,007

  522,353

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in her Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13833]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No permanent jobs have been advertised for external recruitment to this Department during the three months from November 1995 to January 1996.

  Departmental Staff (IT Skills)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of civil servants in her Department have had(a) no training in information technology skills, (b) initial awareness training only, (c) initial awareness training and one additional in-service course, (d) initial awareness training and more than one additional in-service course and (e) award-bearing in-service course. [13555]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Around 10 per cent, of Department for Education and Employment staff have not yet received training in information technology skills.
  209
  Approximately 90 per cent. of Department staff have received at least initial awareness training only.

  Information on the proportion of staff who have had initial awareness training only; initial awareness training and one additional in-service course; initial awareness training and more than one additional in-service course; and an award-bearing in-service course is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost per pupil aged(a) under five years, (b) five to seven years, (c) seven to 11 years, (d) 11 to 16 years and (e) 16 to 18 years in each English local education authority in 1974, 1979, 1990 and the latest year for which figures are available. [13840]

  LEA unit costs net institutional expenditure

  1990–91

  1993–94

  LEAs

  Pre-primary and primary cash £

  1995 prices £

  secondary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Pre-primary and primarycash £

  1995 prices £

  Secondary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Corporation of London

  1,952

  2,263

  0

  0

  3,587

  3,655

  0

  0

  Camden

  1,708

  1,980

  2,290

  2,654

  2,047

  2,086

  2,716

  2,767

  Greenwich

  1,769

  2,050

  2,383

  2,763

  2,009

  2,047

  2,583

  2,631

  Hackney

  1,901

  2,203

  2,707

  3,138

  1,958

  1,995

  2,617

  2,667

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,970

  2,284

  2,667

  3,092

  2,534

  2,581

  3,329

  3,392

  Islington

  1,766

  2,047

  2,438

  2,826

  2,719

  2,771

  3,005

  3,061

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,058

  2,386

  2,904

  3,366

  2,394

  2,438

  3,226

  3,327

  Lambeth

  1,840

  2,133

  2,583

  2,994

  2,666

  2,716

  3,296

  3,358

  Lewisham

  1,713

  1,986

  2,432

  2,819

  2,058

  2,097

  2,614

  2,663

  Southwark

  1,852

  2,147

  2,351

  2,725

  1,806

  1,840

  2,421

  2,467

  Tower Hamlets

  1,939

  2,248

  2,491

  2,888

  2,656

  2,706

  3,157

  3,216

  Wandsworth

  1,820

  2,110

  2,518

  2,919

  2,139

  2,179

  2,795

  2,848

  City of Westminster

  2,107

  2,443

  3,008

  3,487

  2,592

  2,641

  2,739

  2,791

  Barking

  1,457

  1,689

  2,304

  2,671

  1,790

  1,823

  2,355

  2,399

  Barnet

  1,549

  1,795

  2,112

  2,449

  2,006

  2,044

  2,952

  3,008

  Bexley

  1,260

  1,460

  1,966

  2,279

  1,573

  1,602

  2,341

  2,385

  Brent

  1,670

  1,936

  2,359

  2,735

  1,633

  1,663

  1,835

  1,869

  Bromley

  1,415

  1,640

  2,221

  2,575

  1,525

  1,554

  2,280

  2,323

  Croydon

  1,441

  1,670

  2,081

  2,412

  1,793

  1,827

  2,309

  2,353

  Ealing

  1,688

  1,956

  2,576

  2,986

  1,915

  1,951

  2,575

  2,623

  Enfield

  1,428

  1,655

  2,014

  2,334

  1,768

  1,801

  2,531

  2,579

  Haringey

  1,837

  2,129

  2,588

  3,000

  2,236

  2,278

  3,041

  3,098

  Harrow

  1,482

  1,718

  2,323

  2,693

  1,913

  1,949

  2,439

  2,485

  Havering

  1,294

  1,500

  2,136

  2,476

  1,636

  1,666

  2,290

  2,333

  Hillingdon

  1,541

  1,787

  2,339

  2,711

  1,804

  1,838

  2,670

  2,720

  Hounslow

  1,507

  1,747

  2,057

  2,385

  1,935

  1,971

  2,284

  2,327

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,434

  1,663

  2,242

  2,599

  1,728

  1,760

  2,284

  2,327

  Merton

  1,754

  2,034

  1,988

  2,305

  1,853

  1,888

  2,463

  2,509

  Newham

  1,491

  1,729

  2,409

  2,792

  1,708

  1,740

  2,563

  2,611

  Redbridge

  1,350

  1,565

  2,122

  2,460

  1,640

  1,671

  2,526

  2,573

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,528

  1,771

  1,987

  2,303

  1,794

  1,827

  2,280

  2,323

  Sutton

  1,362

  1,579

  2,076

  2,406

  1,639

  1,670

  1,978

  2,015

  Waltham Forest

  1,569

  1,819

  2,648

  3,069

  1,821

  1,855

  2,526

  2,574

  Birmingham

  1,262

  1,463

  2,052

  2,379

  1,572

  1,601

  2,330

  2,374

  Coventry

  1,301

  1,509

  2,342

  2,716

  1,684

  1,715

  2,469

  2,516

  Dudley

  1,233

  1,430

  2,097

  2,430

  1,490

  1,518

  2,098

  2,138

  Sandwell

  1,447

  1,677

  2,296

  2,661

  1,681

  1,713

  2,349

  2,393

  Solihull

  1,239

  1,436

  2,084

  2,416

  1,574

  1,603

  2,217

  2,259

  Walsall

  1,515

  1,756

  2,184

  2,531

  1,672

  1,704

  2,281

  2,324

  Wolverhampton

  1,388

  1,609

  2,121

  2,459

  1,357

  1,382

  2,300

  2,343

  210
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following tables show the net institutional expenditure per pupil in cash and in 1995 prices for English local education authority maintained(a) pre-primary and primary and (b) secondary schools, for 1974–75, 1979–80, 1990–91 and 1993–94, and unit costs for each LEA for 1990–91 and 1993–94, the latest year for which outturn figures are available. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  England unit costs net institutional expenditure

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  cash £

  1995 prices £

  cash £

  1995 prices £

  1974–75

  201

  1,054

  319

  1,673

  1979–80

  429

  1,072

  607

  1,517

  1990–91

  1,339

  1,552

  2,019

  2,341

  1993–94

  1,630

  1,661

  2,245

  2,287

  211

  LEA unit costs net institutional expenditure

  1990–91

  1993–94

  LEAs

  Pre-primary and primary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Secondary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Pre-primary and primary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Secondary cash £

  1995 prices £

  Knowsley

  1,386

  1,606

  2,227

  2,582

  1,485

  1,513

  2,243

  2,285

  Liverpool

  1,285

  1,490

  2,252

  2,610

  1,586

  1,616

  2,613

  2,662

  St. Helens

  1,211

  1,404

  1,962

  2,274

  1,605

  1,635

  2,315

  2,358

  Sefton

  1,258

  1,458

  2,029

  2,353

  1,448

  1,475

  2,204

  2,245

  Wirral

  1,279

  1,482

  2,112

  2,448

  1,552

  1,581

  2,299

  2,343

  Bolton

  1,221

  1,415

  1,950

  2,261

  1,581

  1,610

  2,119

  2,159

  Bury

  1,193

  1,383

  1,808

  2,096

  1,432

  1,459

  1,979

  2,016

  Manchester

  1,321

  1,532

  2,146

  2,488

  1,547

  1,576

  2,328

  2,371

  Oldham

  1,370

  1,588

  1,922

  2,228

  1,645

  1,676

  2,278

  2,321

  Rochdale

  1,199

  1,390

  2,135

  2,475

  1,307

  1,331

  1,974

  2,011

  Salford

  1,267

  1,469

  2,146

  2,487

  1,505

  1,533

  2,215

  2,257

  Stockport

  1,261

  1,462

  2,029

  2,352

  1,466

  1,493

  2,310

  2,353

  Tameside

  1,316

  1,526

  1,939

  2,248

  1,442

  1,470

  2,095

  2,135

  Trafford

  1,173

  1,360

  2,076

  2,407

  1,428

  1,455

  2,156

  2,197

  Wigan

  1,144

  1,327

  2,096

  2,430

  1,437

  1,464

  2,141

  2,181

  Barnsley

  1,262

  1,463

  1,821

  2,112

  1,539

  1,568

  2,101

  2,141

  Doncaster

  1,255

  1,455

  1,861

  2,157

  1,425

  1,452

  2,022

  2,060

  Rotherham

  1,336

  1,549

  1,959

  2,271

  1,723

  1,755

  2,271

  2,313

  Sheffield

  1,386

  1,607

  2,086

  2,418

  1,573

  1,602

  2,119

  2,159

  Bradford

  1,497

  1,735

  1,777

  2,060

  1,654

  1,685

  1,969

  2,006

  Calderdale

  1,441

  1,670

  2,094

  2,427

  1,607

  1,637

  2,162

  2,203

  Kirklees

  1,295

  1,502

  1,920

  2,226

  1,579

  1,608

  2,207

  2,248

  Leeds

  1,428

  1,656

  1,920

  2,226

  1,647

  1,677

  2,164

  2,204

  Wakefield

  1,339

  1,553

  1,989

  2,305

  1,577

  1,607

  2,150

  2,191

  Gateshead

  1,391

  1,613

  2,078

  2,409

  1,664

  1,696

  2,252

  2,294

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,519

  1,761

  1,992

  2,309

  1,697

  1,729

  2,187

  2,228

  North Tyneside

  1,308

  1,516

  1,929

  2,236

  1,469

  1,496

  1,995

  2,032

  South Tyneside

  1,287

  1,402

  2,087

  2,420

  1,463

  1,491

  1,948

  1,985

  Sunderland

  1,277

  1,481

  1,933

  2,241

  1,509

  1,538

  2,114

  2,154

  Isles of Scilly

  1,770

  2,052

  4,387

  5,086

  2,401

  2,446

  4,415

  4,498

  Avon

  1,316

  1,526

  1,944

  2,254

  1,571

  1,601

  2,288

  2,331

  Bedfordshire

  1,384

  1,605

  1,877

  2,175

  1,639

  1,670

  2,103

  2,143

  Berkshire

  1,339

  1,553

  1,949

  2,259

  1,592

  1,622

  2,214

  2,255

  Buckinghamshire

  1,322

  1,533

  2,052

  2,379

  1,735

  1,768

  2,286

  2,329

  Cambridgeshire

  1,259

  1,460

  1,881

  2,181

  1,534

  1,563

  1,956

  1,992

  Cheshire

  1,255

  1,455

  1,955

  2,266

  1,483

  1,511

  2,106

  2,145

  Cleveland

  1,229

  1,425

  2,034

  2,358

  1,461

  1,488

  2,129

  2,169

  Cornwall

  1,189

  1,378

  1,887

  2,187

  1,535

  1,564

  2,160

  2,201

  Cumbria

  1,342

  1,556

  1,990

  2,307

  1,667

  1,698

  2,216

  2,258

  Derbyshire

  1,367

  1,585

  2,108

  2,443

  1,600

  1,630

  2,214

  2,256

  Devon

  1,310

  1,518

  1,950

  2,261

  1,503

  1,531

  2,157

  2,198

  Dorset

  1,292

  1,498

  1,807

  2,095

  1,485

  1,513

  2,065

  2,104

  Durham

  1,366

  1,584

  1,902

  2,205

  1,664

  1,695

  2,114

  2,154

  East Sussex

  1,239

  1,437

  1,983

  2,299

  1,643

  1,674

  2,270

  2,313

  Essex

  1,241

  1,439

  1,953

  2,263

  1,724

  1,757

  2,286

  2,329

  Gloucestershire

  1,203

  1,395

  1,912

  2,216

  1,523

  1,552

  2,084

  2,123

  Hampshire

  1,261

  1,462

  1,967

  2,281

  1,583

  1,613

  2,180

  2,221

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,359

  1,575

  1,841

  2,135

  1,617

  1,647

  2,038

  2,076

  Hertfordshire

  1,338

  1,551

  2,067

  2,396

  1,664

  1,695

  2,245

  2,287

  Humberside

  1,282

  1,487

  1,833

  2,125

  1,621

  1,651

  2,257

  2,299

  Isle of Wight

  1,249

  1,448

  1,757

  2,036

  1,598

  1,628

  2,027

  2,065

  Kent

  1,120

  1,299

  1,803

  2,090

  1,397

  1,423

  2,079

  2,118

  Lancashire

  1,311

  1,520

  1,948

  2,258

  1,669

  1,701

  2,347

  2,391

  Leicestershire

  1,291

  1,496

  2,095

  2,428

  1,629

  1,660

  2,263

  2,306

  Lincolnshire

  1,214

  1,408

  1,905

  2,209

  1,496

  1,524

  2,322

  2,366

  Norfolk

  1,285

  1,489

  1,991

  2,309

  1,585

  1,615

  2,309

  2,352

  North Yorkshire

  1,234

  1,431

  2,024

  2,346

  1,555

  1,584

  2,187

  2,228

  Northamptonshire

  1,226

  1,421

  1,797

  2,083

  1,522

  1,550

  2,125

  2,165

  Northumberland

  1,321

  1,531

  1,806

  2,094

  1,686

  1,718

  2,083

  2,122

  Nottinghamshire

  1,390

  1,612

  2,220

  2,573

  1,653

  1,684

  2,381

  2,426

  Oxfordshire

  1,565

  1,815

  2,157

  2,500

  1,765

  1,799

  2,191

  2,232

  Shropshire

  1,353

  1,569

  2,104

  2,440

  1,577

  1,607

  2,354

  2,398

  Somerset

  1,226

  1,421

  1,854

  2,150

  1,583

  1,613

  2,138

  2,178

  Staffordshire

  1,266

  1,468

  1,925

  2,232

  1,534

  1,563

  2,078

  2,117

  Suffolk

  1,310

  1,519

  2,023

  2,346

  1,673

  1,704

  2,190

  2,231

  Surrey

  1,341

  1,554

  2,105

  2,440

  1,701

  1,733

  2,215

  2,257

  Warwickshire

  1,219

  1,413

  1,895

  2,196

  1,555

  1,584

  2,420

  2,466

  West Sussex

  1,240

  1,437

  1,908

  2,212

  1,579

  1,608

  2,467

  2,514

  Wiltshire

  1,264

  1,465

  1,890

  2,191

  1,521

  1,550

  2,379

  2,424

  212

  Employment Service (Pay Dispute)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to resolve the pay dispute in the Employment Service; and if she will make a statement. [14044]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Nicholas Harvey, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the current trade dispute within the Employment Service; responsibility for pay bargaining was delegated to the Agency in January 1994.

  The Agency is in dispute with the Civil & Public Services Association (CPSA) over the 1995 pay award to those of our employees in grades represented by that union. These ES people have been paid increases, with effect from April 1995, of between 2.8% and 5.5%, depending upon their individual performance in the year ending March 1995. The majority of them received pay rises of more than 3.7%. We have made clear from the outset our view that these pay awards are fair, and are set at a level that is all the Agency can afford.

  The pay awards were in addition to a 2.3% increase, also paid in April, for this group of employees as a consequence of CPSA agreement to a new pay structure for the grades in question.

  The Employment Service remains committed to finding an early resolution to the dispute to enable us to resume our normal level of service to the jobseekers who use the 50 offices currently affected by strike action. Whilst we cannot and will not improve the 1995 pay award, we have offered to make specific provision during the 1996 pay negotiations to address particular issues which have been raised by the CPSA. It is for the union to decide whether to take the opportunity presented by the offer to end the dispute.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  European Union Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13639]

  Mr. Forth
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for European Community legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13708]

  Mr. Forth
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the booklet, "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of official guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that likely burdens on business highlighted by UK compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the 214
  UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the number of schools which submitted bids for named projects, (b) the number of schools which had bids carried forward from 1995–96, (c) the number of individual projects for which bids were considered, (d) the total value of projects for which bids are considered, (e) the number of schools which have had an allocation for a project to be started in 1996–97, (f) the number of individual projects which have been approved for start in 1996–97 and (g) the total value of projects to be started in 1996–97 in respect of capital grant for grant-maintained schools in 1996–97. [13967]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance was given to grant-maintained schools on submitting bids for capital grant in 1996–97. [13943]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those grant-maintained schools where capital grant is being allocated in 1996–97 to meet basic need giving, in each case, the number of additional places being made available. [13962]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the grant-maintained schools which(a) submitted bids or (b) had bids carried forward from 1995–96 for named projects to be funded from capital grant in 1996–97; and, in each case, what was the nature and value of the bid and of any allocation made. [13964]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those grant-maintained schools which have applied for a significant change of character under section 96 of the Education Act 1993, stating in each case(a) the nature of the change, (b) whether it has been approved and (c) the capital cost associated with the change. [13984]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table lists the grant-maintained schools which have applied for a significant change of character under section 96 of the Education Act 1993, the nature of the change and the
  215
  Secretary of State's decision. Section 96 of the Education Act 1993 came into force on 1 April 1994 on which date capital costs at grant-maintained schools became the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member giving the capital costs associated with the changes at the schools.

  Area

  Name of GM School

  Decision

  To add or extend sixth form

  Berkshire

  The Westgate School

  Approved

  Birmingham

  Ninestiles GM School

  Rejected

  Birmingham

  Bishop Challoner RC (GM) School

  Undecided

  Cambridgeshire

  The Queen's School

  Rejected

  Cambridgeshire

  Comberton Village School

  Undecided

  Derbyshire

  Heanor Gate School

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  Woodlands GM Community School

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  West Park GM Community School

  Undecided

  Dudley

  Ellowes Hall School

  Approved

  Essex

  The Greensward School

  Approved

  Essex

  The King Edmund School

  Rejected

  Essex

  The Philip Morant School

  Approved

  Essex

  St. Thomas More High School For Boys

  Approved

  Essex

  Furtherwick Park School

  Undecided

  Gloucestershire

  St. Benedict's RC High School

  Undecided

  Gloucestershire

  Balcarras GM School

  Undecided

  Gloucestershire

  Pittville GM School

  Undecided

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham Kingsmead School

  Undecided

  Hampshire

  Hardley GM School

  Approved

  Hampshire

  Bay House GM School

  Approved

  Hampshire

  Applemore Technology College

  Undecided

  Hampshire

  Testwood GM School

  Undecided

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne School

  Rejected

  Hertfordshire

  Hockerill School

  Rejected

  Kent

  Hayesbrook School

  Undecided

  Kent

  Northfleet School For Boys

  Undecided

  Lambeth

  La Retraite RC Girls1 GM School

  Approved

  Lincolnshire

  Sir William Robertson High School

  Rejected

  Lincolnshire

  The Giles School

  Rejected

  Lincolnshire

  Monks Dyke High School

  Undecided

  Lincolnshire

  Gleed Girls School

  Undecided

  Norfolk

  Cromer High School

  Rejected

  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth GM High School

  Rejected

  Norfolk

  Lynn Grove GM High School

  Rejected

  Norfolk

  Acle High School

  Rejected

  Norfolk

  Flegg High School

  Rejected

  Rochdale

  Wardle High School

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Hollingworth GM High School

  Rejected

  Sandwell

  Heathfield High School

  Rejected

  Shropshire

  Abraham Darby GM School

  Rejected

  Surrey

  Heathside Secondary School

  Approved

  Surrey

  Winston Churchill School

  Undecided

  Tameside

  Audenshaw High School

  Undecided

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford GM School

  Undecided

  To add or extend nursery provision

  Berkshire

  Holy Family RC School

  Undecided

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infant School

  Undecided

  Buckinghamshire

  Overstone GM Combined School

  Rejected

  Cambridgeshire

  The Park Lane GM Primary School

  Rejected

  Cambridgeshire

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  Undecided

  Cheshire

  St. Wilfrid's RC GM School

  Undecided

  Cumbria

  St. Paul's CE GM School

  1Rejected

  Cumbria

  Bowness On Solway GM Primary School

  Rejected

  Cumbria

  Flookburgh CE GM Primary School

  Approved

  216

  Area

  Name of GM School

  Decision

  Cumbria

  Eaglesfield Paddle CE GM School

  Undecided

  Cumbria

  Dalton St. Mary's CE Primary School

  Approved

  Cumbria

  Broughton GM Primary School

  Approved

  Cumbria

  Beaconside Infant School

  Undecided

  Cumbria

  Warwick Bridge Primary School

  Undecided

  Derbyshire

  William Gilbert Endowed Primary School

  Undecided

  Essex

  Northwick Park Infant School

  Approved

  Essex

  Eastwood Infant School

  Approved

  Essex

  Chase Lane GM Primary School

  Approved

  Essex

  St. Mary's CE Primary School

  Undecided

  Essex

  Upshire Primary School

  Undecided

  Essex

  Leverton Infant School

  Undecided

  Essex

  Waltham Holy Cross Infant School

  Undecided

  Essex

  Chetwood Primary School

  Undecided

  Hertfordshire

  Cuffley Primary School

  Approved

  Humberside

  Barmby Moor School

  Undecided

  Kent

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  Approved

  Lambeth

  St. Bede's RC Infant School

  Undecided

  Lincolnshire

  Washingborough GM School

  Rejected

  Lincolnshire

  St. Andrew's CE GM Primary School

  Rejected

  Lincolnshire

  Old Leake School

  Approved

  Norfolk

  Dersingham First School

  Approved

  Norfolk

  Loddon First School

  Undecided

  Norfolk

  Gresham GM School

  Undecided

  Northamptonshire

  Millbrook GM Infant School

  Undecided

  Northamptonshire

  Woodnewton Way Infant School

  Approved

  Surrey

  The Manor School

  1Rejected

  Sutton

  All Saints' CE Primary School

  Approved

  Wiltshire

  Studley Green GM Primary School

  Undecided

  Wiltshire

  St. Edmund's RC Primary School

  Undecided

  Other change of age range

  Berkshire

  Herschel GM Grammar School

  Approved

  Berkshire

  Langley GM Grammar School

  Approved

  Berkshire

  Slough GM Grammar School

  Approved

  Berkshire

  Chippenham GM Middle School

  Undecided

  Buckinghamshire

  Beaconsfield High School

  Approved

  Lincolnshire

  King Edward VI School

  Undecided

  Merton

  Ursuline Convent School

  Undecided

  Warwickshire

  Rugby High School

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Hartshill School

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Myton School

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green GM School

  Approved

  To add whole or partial selection (including introduction of banding arrangements)

  Barnet

  Mill Hill County High School

  Undecided

  Birmingham

  King Edward's Five Ways School

  Undecided

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Oratory School

  1Approved

  Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Startford High School

  Undecided

  Hertfordshire

  Chancellor's School

  Undecided

  Kent

  The Westlands School

  Rejected

  Kingston

  Holy Cross School

  Approved

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison's GM School

  Approved

  Lambeth

  St. Martin In The Fields High School

  Approved

  Surrey

  Glyn ADT GM Technology School

  Rejected

  Surrey

  Rosebery GM Girls' School

  Undecided

  217

  Area

  Decision

  Name of GM School

  Single sex to co-educational

  Gloucestershire

  Central GM Technology College

  Rejected

  1 These proposals also involved a change in the age range of the school.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures are taken to monitor the time taken by agencies with special reference to the School Curriculum Assessment Authority, the Funding Agency for Schools and the Office for Standards 218
  in Education, to answer parliamentary questions; and if she will make a statement. [13963]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department keeps a record of all instances when chairmen of non-executive agencies of non-departmental public bodies such as SCAA, the FAS and Ofsted are asked to reply on a Minister's behalf. These records are updated and monitored to ensure that a reply is sent in answer to such a question, usually within one week of the matter being referred to the relevant agency.

  Executive agencies reply to questions referred to them within the usual parliamentary timetable for answering written questions.

SCOTLAND

  Agriculture Department
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reductions he estimates will take place in respect of current staffing levels within the agriculture group of the Scottish Office in 1996–97. [12303]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A reduction in the staffing levels across the Scottish Office is anticipated as a consequence of cuts of around 5 per cent. running costs for 1996–97. There will be reductions within the agriculture group, but the details have not yet been determined.

  School Transport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities in Scotland provide free transport

  School year 1989–90

  School year 1991–92

  School year 1993–94

  Education authority

  Estimated parent complement on boards at March 1990

  Vacant parent places filled after a contested election1

  Average turnout in contested parental elections

  Estimated parent complement on boards at May 1992

  Vacant parent places filled after a contested election1

  Estimated parent complement on boards at May 1994

  Vacant parent places filled after a contested election1

  Scotland

  9,824

  5,411

  51.4

  9,317

  1,356

  8,924

  1,367

  Borders

  250

  148

  54.3

  255

  20

  224

  22

  Central

  460

  242

  41.0

  451

  95

  447

  65

  Dumfries and Galloway

  389

  189

  56.9

  401

  71

  411

  54

  Fife

  591

  322

  41.9

  487

  72

  501

  110

  Grampian

  960

  562

  42.6

  915

  123

  896

  194

  Highland

  669

  318

  36.8

  672

  125

  651

  97

  Lothian

  1,025

  696

  41.2

  929

  155

  868

  177

  Strathclyde

  4,421

  2,312

  60.5

  4,205

  539

  3,974

  476

  Tayside

  658

  403

  42.9

  646

  110

  616

  109

  Orkney

  89

  82

  62.5

  85

  16

  77

  11

  Shetland

  117

  77

  65.5

  121

  14

  117

  30

  Western Isles

  195

  60

  76.6

  150

  16

  142

  22

  1 Only half of parent places on existing school boards fell due for re-election in each of the 1991–92 and 1993–94 rounds of biennial elections. By definition, all parent places were vacant in the initial round of school board elections in 1989–90. Information on the average turnout in contested parental elections is not available for 1991–92 and 1993–94.

  1. Information on the 1995–96 round of election is not yet available.

  Scottish Homes (Transfers)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many properties have been transferred to other landlords as part of Scottish Homes' stock transfer programme where there was a ballot of tenants; how many and what percentage of tenants voted in favour of the transfers; and how many voted against the transfers. [13251]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  At 31 January 1996 Scottish Homes had transferred 15,324 properties to other landlords as part of its stock transfer programme. I understand that the chairman of Scottish Homes has

  Deaths where hypothermia1 was mentioned on the death certificate, by month and region in 1994 and 19952

  Region

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Females aged 60 years and over—1994:

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  220
  to schools and colleges for pupils beyond the compulsory school leaving age. [12896]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers of school boards have been appointed; how many have been subject to election by parents; and what the average turn-out was in these elections for each academic year since the boards' establishment in each authority in Scotland. [12503]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information held centrally for education authority primary, secondary and special schools is as follows:

  written to the hon. Member providing details of the ballots relating to these transfers.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over (i) for each month of 1994 by region and (ii) for each month of 1995 by region. [13265]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table:
  221

  Deaths where hypothermia1 was mentioned on the death certificate, by month and region in 1994 and 19952

  Region

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Fife

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Grampian

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  Highland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Lothian

  4

  2

  1

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  15

  Strathclyde

  6

  4

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  2

  1

  4

  25

  Tayside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  14

  9

  5

  7

  5

  3

  0

  2

  1

  5

  2

  9

  62

  Males aged 65 years and over—1994;

  Borders

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Central

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Grampian

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Highland

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lothian

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Strathclyde

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  16

  Tayside

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  9

  6

  4

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  34

  Females aged 60 years and over—19952

  Borders

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Central

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Highland

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Lothian

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  11

  Strathclyde

  2

  6

  4

  3

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  27

  Tayside

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  6

  10

  7

  8

  4

  3

  1

  0

  4

  0

  4

  11

  58

  Males aged 65 years and over—19952

  Borders

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Grampian

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Highland

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Lothian

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Strathclyde

  4

  4

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  16

  Tayside

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  9

  6

  5

  4

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  35

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes E901 (primary cause), 780.8,780.9, E901 (secondary cause)

  1 1995 figures are still provisional.

  District and Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on what grounds he proposes to transfer the jurisdiction of Bearsden district court to Glasgow; [13474]

  (2) what procedure will govern the closure of Bearsden and Milngavie district court. [13469]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no proposal to transfer the Bearsden and Milngavie commission area to Glasgow. From 1 April 1996 it will form part of the new East Dunbartonshire commission area. East Dunbartonshire council will then assume responsibility
  222
  for the district court for that commission area. It is for local authorities to determine where district courts sit within commission areas.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will extend the consultation period on his proposal to change the jurisdiction of Dumbarton sheriff court in order to allow local hon. Members and others to see the consultation paper on this subject; [13466]

  (2) what statistical analysis he has carried out to assess how much civil work is carried out from Bearsden and Milngavie in Dumbarton sheriff court; and what would be

  223
  the impact on Glasgow sheriff court if the proposals in his consultation paper were enacted; [13470]

  (3) what are the financial consequences of the proposals contained in the consultation paper on the jurisdiction of Dumbarton sheriff court; [13472]

  (4) with which bodies he has consulted on his proposals to change the jurisdiction of Dumbarton sheriff court; for what reasons local hon. Members were not consulted; and what is his policy in this respect on the removal of Bearsden and Milngavie from the jurisdiction; [13473]

  (5) how many courts he proposes to construct in the new Dumbarton sheriff court; what area they will serve; and what changes he has made to his plans in this respect in the last six months; [13475]

  (6) what will be the change in the number of sheriffs at Dumbarton sheriff court arising from moving Bearsden and Milngavie out of the sheriffdom. [13471]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A consultation paper on proposals to adjust sheriffdom and sheriff court district boundaries following the introduction of the new local authorities was issued by the Scottish courts administration on 29 December 1995 in order to provide information to allow officials to put forward advice to Scottish Office Ministers.

  The paper went to sheriffs principal, the Sheriffs' Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the new local authorities, police forces, the Crown Office, the Scottish Court Service and interested bodies and organisations such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council. Responses were invited by 2 February 1996. Copies of the paper and the full list of consultees have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The proposals in the consultation paper cover the whole of Scotland. In respect of the current jurisdictions of Glasgow and other sheriff courts in the area, views were sought on the prospect of transferring Bearsden and Milngavie to Glasgow's jurisdiction and transferring the area around Rutherglen from Glasgow's jurisdiction to that of Hamilton sheriff court. The net effect would be a small reduction in the workload of Glasgow sheriff court and a small reduction in the workload of Dumbarton sheriff court. No immediate change to the permanent shrieval complement at either court would be required. Any change to requirements for the proposed new sheriff court at Dumbarton will be considered during the detailed planning process.

  No ministerial decisions have yet been made in terms of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, and change to sheriff court districts or to the boundaries of sheriffdoms required to be made by statutory instrument. Changes to the boundaries of sheriffdoms require an affirmative resolution in both Houses.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what inspection service exists to assess the quality of service at Glasgow and Dumbarton sheriff courts; [13468]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the (a) relative workloads, (b) waiting times and (c) quality of service of Glasgow and Dumbarton sheriff courts. [13467]
  224
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Waiting periods for summary criminal and civil business for Glasgow and Dumbarton sheriff courts and performance of these courts against the quality of service target set for the Scottish Court Service as at 31 December 1995 are shown in the following table:

  Summary criminal waiting period

  Ordinary civil waiting period (proofs/debates)

  Percentage of quality targets achieved1

  Glasgow Sheriff Court

  21 weeks

  12 weeks/8 weeks

  97.2

  Dumbarton Sheriff Court

  10 weeks

  12 weeks/6 weeks

  100

  1 24 individual quality of service targets are set for staff in the sheriff court. They are detailed in the framework document of the Scottish Court Service which is available in the Library.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) analysed and evaluated on health services for children with terminal illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [12581]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government acknowledge that there is sufficient demand to justify the establishment of a children's hospice in Scotland. Information is not collected centrally which would make it possible to establish the exact number of children with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition who would benefit from access to a children's hospice. The opening of Rachel house, Kinross, should enable a more accurate estimate to be made of the need for such a facility.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy that children's hospices be eligible for matching funding from the national health service. [12582]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Access to public funding for the health care work of the children's hospice in Scotland should be through the mechanism of contracts with health boards, based on each board's assessment of need.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were cared for in each of the past five years in children's hospices; and if he will make a statement. [12584]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has not been a children's hospice in Scotland during the last five years. Information about the number of children from Scotland cared for in children's hospices in England during that period is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospices for children are registered; and what financial assistance they have received in each of the past three years. [12583]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None, although it is expected that Rachel house, Kinross, will be registered shortly.

  The Scottish Office has contributed £250,000 in this and the two previous financial years to the Children's Hospice Association Scotland in respect of Rachel house,

  225
  Kinross. In addition, my right hon. Friend recently announced a further contribution of £500,000 over the next two financial years.

  Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial management reviews of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. [14553]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the Government's rolling programme of five-yearly policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise during 1996. The first stage of the review will take the form of a prior options study. In accordance with normal practice on such reviews, this will include an examination of the scope for discontinuing, privatising, contracting out or transferring to another body some or all of the functions carried out by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. This study is now under way and I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 31 March 1996 to:

  Mr. J. Irvine

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  Room 3F-53

  Victoria Quay

  Edinburgh

  EH6 6QQ

  Cold Weather (Public Information)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all public information films relating to the effects of cold weather on plumbing; and if he will list the names of the films, who produced them and when they were shown. [12706]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Two short public information films entitled "Pipe Bursts" and "Frost Warning" were made by the Central Office of Information in 1969. Both were withdrawn from circulation in the early 1980s. A television commercial was produced by the Scottish Office in 1984 and broadcast that year. No other details are now available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the levels of public expenditure for public information materials on the effects of cold weather on plumbing(a) in each five-year period since 1966 and (b) for each year in the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the materials on which the moneys were spent. [12708]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: There has been no Scottish Office expenditure on public information material in the past five years. The last expenditure on this subject was in 1984 when a television
  226
  commercial was produced by the Scottish Office. No records exist for previous years. Details of local authority expenditure in this area are not held centrally.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when a public information film on the effects of cold weather was last shown in Scotland; what was the name of this film; and who produced it. [12707]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: A television commercial was produced by the Scottish Office in 1984 but no records of it now exist. The Scottish Office is currently in discussion with the Central Office of Information regarding production of a new public information film on the effects of cold weather on domestic plumbing.

  Ferry Subsidies
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount paid in public subsidy to P and O in respect of its services on the northern isles routes; and if he will make a statement. [12721]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Total subsidy provision for the support of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland provided by P and O Scottish Ferries in 1995–96 amounts to £7.9 million.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on the payment of subsidies to ferry companies providing services on the northern isles routes; and if he will make a statement. [12720]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The Government remain committed to providing the support which is necessary to ensure the continuity of essential passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland. After a competitive tendering process, the Government will award later this year a contract to operate passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland under new block grant arrangements. These new block grant arrangements reflect the Government's concern to ensure the viability of the essential passenger services to the northern isles and to obtain value for money from the substantial financial assistance which is provided to support essential shipping services to the islands.

  Racially Motivated Crime
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the number of crimes which were recorded as being racially motivated reported since 1989 within each police authority in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [13793]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: Details of the number of crimes with racial motivation are not available, although statistics are now being collected to provide that information. The table gives the number of incidents with racial motivation recorded by the police.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Central

  18

  45

  69

  51

  52

  75

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6

  Fife

  —

  3

  35

  30

  20

  40

  Grampian

  4

  9

  4

  20

  28

  44

  227

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Lothian and Borders

  91

  178

  213

  184

  223

  266

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Strathclyde

  236

  300

  254

  250

  205

  225

  Tayside

  27

  101

  103

  128

  193

  135

  Total

  376

  636

  678

  663

  726

  791

  Judicial Factories and Curatories
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review remuneration in judicial factories and curatories; and if he will make a statement. [13791]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]; Under statute, the responsibility for fixing commission for judicial factories and curatories rests with the accountant of court in the Court of Session.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Commons Staff (Pay)
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff of the House have salaries higher than those of(a) junior Ministers, (b) Ministers of State and (c) Cabinet Ministers together with their titles. [13586]

  Mr. Beith
  The information requested is listed in the following tables:

  (a) Staff whose basic salaries are greater than that of a Junior Minister

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Principal Clerk Class II

  4

  4

  Deputy Principal Clerk

  10

  5

  Assistant to Speaker's Counsel

  1

  5

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Information Systems Officer

  1

  5

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  1

  4

  Department of the Official Report

  Editor

  1

  4

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  Advisor

  1

  2

  Head of the Establishments Office

  1

  4

  Accountant

  1

  4

  228

  (b) Staff whose basic salaries are greater than that of a Minister of State

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  Advisor

  1

  2

  (c) Staff whose basic salaries are greater than that of a Cabinet Minister

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Advisor

  1

  2

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Tribunals
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what remedy an employer has when he believes that an industrial tribunal has failed to take all relevant information into account in arriving at a decision which is unfavourable to him. [13574]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Where a party is dissatisfied with the industrial tribunal's decision, he may either ask the tribunal to review its decision or appeal, on a point of law only, to the employment appeal tribunal. Further appeals lie with the Court of Appeal and ultimately the House of Lords. The industrial tribunals and the EAT are independent judicial bodies and the Government cannot comment on, or intervene in, the conduct of proceedings in individual cases.

  Helicopter Sales (Turkey)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that helicopters sold by the United Kingdom to the Turkish Government are not used against civilians; and if he will make a statement. [12879]
  229
  Mr. Oppenheim
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries, or details of export licences or applications for export licences.

  Applications for licences to export defence equipment are considered on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the appropriate Government Departments and in the light of established criteria. These include taking into account the human rights record of recipient states. We would not issue an export licence for the export of equipment which was likely to be used for internal repression.

  Consumer Protection Act 1987
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to encourage greater public awareness of the provisions of part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 following the Consumer Associations's study entitled "Unsafe Products: How the Consumer Protection Act Works for Consumers." [13981]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We are giving careful consideration to this report, which was, in fact, produced by the National Consumer Council. My Department publishes a number of explanatory guides on consumer protection legislation—one of them a guide to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987—aimed at promoting a better understanding by businesses of then-responsibilities and liabilities under the legislation, and making consumers more aware of their rights.

  Electricity Industry Regulator
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the formula used by the electricity industry regulator to determine how much profit is given as return to shareholders. [13908]

  Mr. Eggar
  The form of the price controls in the regulated electricity market is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who has hitherto imposed controls of the form "RPI-X". Distributions to 0shareholders are a commercial matter for the electricity companies.

  Gas Industry Regulator
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the formula used by the gas industry regulator to determine how much profit is given as return to shareholders. [13910]

  Mr. Eggar
  The form of price control for British Gas's regulated businesses is a matter for the regulator, the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13827]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department has operated an internal advertising scheme for vacancies in all grades from administrative assistant to grade 7, and equivalents,230
  since April 1994. In the three months November 1995 to January 1996 inclusive, 239 posts were advertised. This figure is broken down by grade in the table below.

  Grade

  Post advertised (November 1995-January 1996)

  Secretarial Group

  13

  Administrative Group

  86

  Executive Officer

  62

  Higher Executive Officer level

  39

  Senior Executive Officer level

  9

  Grade 7

  30

  Total

  239

  Information on the number of applicants for these specific posts is not yet available, but historical data suggest mat, on average, there are three applicants for each post advertised.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount paid under ECGD guarantees since 1980 in relation to trade with the United Arab Emirates; what was(a) the amount paid to banks under buyer credit and line of credit facilities, (b) the amount paid directly to exporters under short-term or supplier credit facilities and (c) the amount subsequently recovered; and if he will estimate the proportion of each figure paid in respect of (i) the export of military and related equipment and (ii) the export of military and related equipment where the end user has been assessed to have been Iraq. [13946]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1980, the ECGD has paid claims of £27.9 million in relation to trade with the United Arab Emirates and made recoveries of £15.1 million. Of the claims, £21.3 million related to short-term or supplier credit facilities. The ECGD maintains no records of the goods supplied under its now privatised short-term business, but there is otherwise no record of any of the claims relating to arms business.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount paid under ECGD guarantees since 1980 in relation to trade with Singapore; what was(a) the amount paid to banks under buyer credit and line of credit facilities, (b) the amount paid directly to exporters under short-term or supplier credit facilities and (c) the amount subsequently recovered; and if he will estimate the proportion of each figure paid in respect of (i) the export of military and related equipment and (ii) the export of military and related equipment where the end user has been assessed to have been Iraq. [13945]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1980, the ECGD has paid claims of £13.1 million in relation to trade with Singapore and made recoveries of £1.43 million. All the claims related to short-term or supplier credit facilities. The ECGD maintains no record of the goods supplied under its now privatised short-term business, but there is otherwise no record of any of the claims relating to arms business.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards investment in
  231
  Cambodia by British companies; what action the British Government have taken to facilitate business links; and if he will make a statement. [13949]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Investment prospects in Cambodia have improved since the internationally brokered comprehensive political settlement brought to power a democratically elected coalition Government in 1993. However, the state of the economy and security situation mean that opportunities are limited at the moment.

  The British Government, through our embassy in Phnom Penh, maintain regular contacts with all British companies resident in Cambodia. The embassy regularly supports visiting British companies in their efforts to establish business links. The British chamber of commerce in Bangkok visited Cambodia last year and Cambodian officials will visit the UK in March and again later this year. An export promoter from the DTI and trade promotion staff are planning to visit Cambodia later this year to identify further opportunities for British companies wishing to establish business links.

  In addition, we encourage UK companies to take advantage of the European Union programmes, such as the EC investment partners scheme, which are designed to promote links between businesses in Europe and in certain developing countries such as Cambodia.

  Myanmar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards investment in Myanmar by British companies; what action the British Government have taken to facilitate business links; and if he will make a statement. [13950]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department continues to provide information relating to investment issues in Burma and the associated risks. However, our efforts are focused primarily on the trade opportunities that may exist for British companies, rather than on investment, where we continue to take a cautious line.

  My Department held a trade awareness seminar, "An Introduction to Burma", at the London chamber of commerce on 5 December 1995. This will be followed by a trade mission to Burma from 26 February to 1 March 1996.

  Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what penalties exist in each member state of the European Union for non-compliance with the electro magnetic compatibility directive. [13500]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department does not hold information concerning the penalties in all of the member states for non-compliance with the

  Article 54 investment loans

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  Cleveland

  12,842

  9,000

  86,164

  60,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clwyd

  31,630

  22,000

  17,266

  12,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  25,878

  18,000

  57,112

  40,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  75,818

  53,000

  77,398

  54,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  232
  electromagnetic compatibility directive. Other member states will have taken such steps as they felt appropriate to ensure compliance with the directive. In a communication of 3 May 1995, the Commission, reflecting the common view of Community institutions, noted that national penalty arrangements should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Council resolution of 21 June 1995 encouraged the Commission to ensure that penalties introduced by member states to ensure compliance meet these criteria. My Department will monitor the situation.

  Protecting electrical and electronic equipment from electromagnetic interference is important and, under the electromagnetic compatibility regulations, as amended, the United Kingdom enforcement authorities may issue a suspension notice or a prohibition notice to secure compliance or prosecute for offences which could lead to fines on summary conviction of up to £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. Except in the case of CE-marked apparatus found not to comply with EMC protection requirements, before seeking prosecution enforcement authorities must first send a compliance notice, to which no penalties attach so long as compliance follows within a reasonable period.

  Greyhound Breeding (Ireland)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member for Wentworth will receive an answer to his question of 30 November about the support of greyhound breeding in Ireland by the EC. [13126]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are certain European Community structural fund grants for greyhound breeding in the Republic of Ireland.

  Information about details of these funds' grants in other EC member states is not directly available in the United Kingdom. I have, however, made inquiries and expect to be able to give a substantive answer within the next few days.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds, (i) in each eligible region and (ii) in total, the United Kingdom received in European Coal and Steel Community loans over the last available five-year period. [11696]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: Loan activity under the ECSC treaty comprises article 54 investment loans, article 56 reconversion loans, and loans disbursed under the workers' housing programme. The information requested is as follows. Figures are not available on a regional basis for loans under the workers' housing programme.
  233

  Article 54 investment loans

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  ECU

  £

  Durham

  51,691

  36,000

  28,655

  20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  21,582

  15,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  25,799

  18,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  18,705

  13,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater London

  —

  15,827

  11,000

  3,332,132

  2,330,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  12,842

  9,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  25,684

  18,000

  172,118

  120,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  44,472

  31,000

  204,990

  143,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  120,766

  84,000

  12,850

  9,000

  113,339,449

  80,000,000

  25,446,361

  20,000,000

  126,343,985

  97,000,000

  Leicestershire

  137,498

  96,000

  56,115

  39,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  25,898

  18,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  51,756

  36,000

  58,893

  41,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  60,123

  42,000

  355,197

  248,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  41,626

  29,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  186,509

  130,000

  361,635

  252,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  57,508

  40,000

  62,944

  44,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  589,137

  411,000

  569,149

  397,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  22,015,127

  16,377,000

  179,069

  125,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  31,630

  22,000

  5,482,653

  3,910,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  8,633

  6,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  12,842

  9,000

  59,967

  42,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  38,525

  27,000

  83,254

  58,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  12,842

  9,000

  41,505

  29,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  213,881

  149,000

  54,675

  38,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,300,996

  10,000,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rest of UK

  —

  —

  57,327,436

  40,234,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23,809,001

  17,628,000

  65,507,025

  46,025,500

  130,972,577

  92,330,000

  25,446,361

  20,000,000

  126,343,985

  97,000,000

  Source:

  European Commission

  Article 56 reconversion loans

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Cheshire

  1,024,237

  723,000

  488,356

  343,000

  —

  5,314,464

  4,000,000

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  5,058,394

  3,619,200

  8,680,763

  6,081,250

  1,635,895

  1,159,000

  1,079,501

  812,500

  1,719,073

  1,340,000

  Clwyd

  9,636,661

  6,844,500

  11,935,074

  8,355,322

  5,429,458

  33,798,000

  3,435,486

  2,590,000

  5,647,663

  4,365,000

  Cumbria

  1,387,823

  978,500

  738,291

  515,000

  —

  —

  199,292

  150,000

  397,526

  310,000

  Derbyshire

  7,291,691

  5,152,000

  179,639

  125,800

  1,720,953

  1,213,700

  116,977

  90,000

  1,733,568

  1,322,500

  Durham

  12,042,670

  8,648,500

  1,669,627

  1,171,000

  3,132,215

  2,222,500

  2,342,350

  1,763,000

  1,769,253

  1,344,300

  Dyfed

  3,267,360

  2,288,000

  223,539

  157,000

  715,050

  500,000

  106,289

  80,000

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  712,469

  500,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  2,588,173

  1,860,700

  677,434

  472,650

  32,428

  23,000

  301,596

  227,000

  1,467,509

  1,142,000

  Greater Manchester

  12,892,017

  9,153,900

  7,696,014

  5,445,230

  729,423

  519,500

  1,069,536

  805,000

  1,148,275

  869,000

  Gwent

  19,867,601

  14,066,000

  10,568,497

  7,419,500

  1,072,575

  750,000

  7,586,240

  5,715,750

  5,226,426

  4,040,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  203,359

  150,000

  57,343

  40,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1,424,956

  1,010,000

  106,786

  75,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,669,749

  1,290,500

  Kent

  590,641

  424,000

  —

  —

  7,701,086

  5,385,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  391,858

  275,000

  160,179

  112,500

  906,414

  650,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  1,813,610

  1,298,000

  106,864

  75,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  210,235

  158,750

  Lothian

  3,641,879

  2,594,396

  854,202

  597,400

  7,147,801

  5,012,718

  3,232,722

  2,592,000

  4,387,444

  3,413,000

  Merseyside

  6,047,284

  4,306,630

  2,149,901

  1,510,000

  3,889,969

  2,809,000

  168,821

  140,000

  407,142

  312,500

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,575,498

  4,715,250

  3,942,230

  2,774,000

  7,579,751

  5,411,000

  1,417,981

  1,070,000

  397,294

  300,000

  Northamptonshire

  5,084,364

  3,608,150

  7,182,952

  5,033,705

  243,208

  172,500

  31,887

  24,000

  2,658,672

  2,015,000

  Northumberland

  3,774,663

  2,681,000

  355,954

  250,000

  152,974

  108,500

  723,432

  544,500

  256,990

  200,000

  Nottinghamshire

  8,752,384

  6,219,050

  2,598,407

  1,832,000

  6,324,233

  4,435,000

  132,862

  100,000

  5,146,217

  3,989,200

  Rest of Scotland

  52,737

  38,900

  18,497,913

  13,000,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  5,018,552

  3,604,840

  3,228,985

  2,272,000

  —

  —

  670,951

  505,000

  264,863

  200,000

  South Yorkshire

  18,428,729

  13,121,530

  7,969,790

  5,640,000

  8,375,186

  5,888,500

  403,899

  304,000

  8,641,932

  6,708,100

  Staffordshire

  11,700,683

  8,303,046

  8,662,854

  6,144,500

  12,341,556

  8,733,347

  2,763,521

  2,080,000

  3,926,603

  2,980,000

  Strathclyde

  40,226,372

  29,266,730

  14,768,555

  10,400,000

  10,244,146

  7,215,000

  6,765,976

  5,092,500

  25,116,834

  19,453,500

  Tyne and Wear

  16,826,138

  11,941,980

  20,699,524

  14,565,165

  4,448,208

  3,112,000

  5,024,515

  3,785,000

  4,920,788

  3,732,500

  Warwickshire

  4,589,789

  3,231,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  3,929,099

  2,813,900

  711,908

  500,000

  —

  —

  60,986

  50,000

  2,815,852

  2,150,000

  West Midlands

  35,373,890

  25,341,150

  12,882,243

  9,035,992

  5,471,496

  3,963,000

  1,980,500

  1,490,650

  10,717,609

  8,235,500

  West Yorkshire

  11,561,019

  8,264,360

  2,465,256

  1,756,000

  6,965,356

  4,992,000

  551,375

  415,000

  4,446,322

  3,364,750

  Rest of UK

  881,729

  635,000

  109,371,238

  76,863,000

  6,459,460

  4,613,000

  1,992,924

  1,500,000

  —

  —

  Total

  262,658,329

  187,678,212

  259,630,318

  182,562,964

  102,718,841

  72,686,265

  47,474,083

  35,925,900

  95,193,163

  76,509,000

  234 235

  Loans under the worker's housing programme

  (millions)

  United Kingdom Ecu

  £

  1990

  1.40

  1.15

  1991

  8.00

  6.56

  1992

  0.70

  0.57

  1993

  0.00

  0.00

  1994

  0.10

  0.08

  Nuclear Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the total cost in terms of(a) compensation, (b) grants and (c) loss of productive capacity arising from the effects of the Chernobyl incident. [13286]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]A number of countries were affected by radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident. My Department has no sound basis for estimating the total cost of compensation and grants paid and the loss of productive capacity in all of those countries. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, compensation amounting to £12,085,311 had been paid to farmers up to 31 December 1995.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable for the intergovernmental conference of the European Union. [12362]

  Mr. David Davis
  The intergovernmental conference will begin in Turin on 29 March. No date has been set for its conclusion.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the triennial funding arrangement for the BBC World Service. [12364]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Changes in the triennium system are under discussion with the World Service.

  European Union (New Members)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the admission of Eastern European countries to membership of the European Union. [12365]

  Mr. David Davis
  We receive many representations on this subject.

  We make it clear that Britain is firmly committed to enlargement to the east, which is fundamental to Europe's security and prosperity.

  Palestinian National Authority
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Palestinian National Authority to discuss future security in the area. [12366]

  Mr. Hanley
  I met representatives of the Palestinian National Authority in Gaza and in east Jerusalem only last month. I have no immediate plans for a follow-up meeting.

  European Union (Political Integration)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the President of the European Commission, to discuss progress towards further political integration. [12369]

  Mr. David Davis
  The President of the European Commission regularly attends Foreign Affairs Councils. The next such Council is on 26 and 27 February.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the peace process in Bosnia. [12370]

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implementation of the peace agreement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [12378]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  On the military side, the parties have shown widespread compliance with the terms of the peace agreement and first deadlines have largely been met. The international community is now concentrating its efforts on civilian implementations and reconstruction so that the people of Bosnia can see the benefits of peace. We are playing a full part in the reconstruction effort. The key to lasting peace is the will of the parties themselves to achieve it.

  Cyprus (EU Accession)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss her accession to the EU. [12371]

  Mr. David Davis
  None, but I discuss the matter regularly with my European and Cypriot colleagues at the European Union/Cyprus Acquisition Councils. The next Council will be held in May.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Bulgaria to discuss enhancing Anglo-Bulgarian relationships. [12372]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I visited Sofia on 1 and 2 February. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit soon.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards the establishment of a secretariat for the Antarctic treaty. [12373]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The issue was taken forward at a meeting of legal experts in Brussels in November when organisational aspects of an Antarctic treaty secretariat were discussed. Discussions continue among treaty consultative parties about the siting of the secretariat.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to pay an official visit to Pakistan to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [12374]

  Mr. Hanley
  I hope to visit Pakistan in the near future to discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to revisit Jerusalem to discuss progress in the middle east peace process. [12375]

  Mr. Hanley
  I visited Jerusalem at the beginning of January and have no plans at present for another visit. I do, however, maintain a close interest in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process. [12379]

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace progress. [12367]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) earlier today.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Chechnya. [12376]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The conflict in Chechnya has brought great suffering and has cost many innocent civilian lives. The situation remains tense; clashes continue daily. A lasting peace cannot be brought through use of force. We therefore urge all sides to abide by the ceasefire agreed in July 1995 and to return to the negotiating table.

  British-Israeli Relations
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Israeli relations. [12377]
  238
  Mr. Hanley
  Relations with Israel are excellent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Israel last November, as I did in January. Shimon Peres visited London from 31 January to 2 February.

  United Nations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to ensure that all member states pay their share of their dues to the UN. [12380]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN Secretary-General informs member states regularly of the organisation's cash flow situation and reminds them of the need to fulfill their financial obligations. Despite this, at the end of 1995, less than half the UN membership had paid in full to the UN regular budget.

  The EU has recently tabled in New York a comprehensive package of proposals, including a revised system of assessments and measures to tighten the penalties for late/non-payment. The aim of this proposal, based on an Anglo-French initiative, is to put the UN back on to a sound financial footing.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the creation of a common United Nations peacekeeping military doctrine; and if he will make a statement. [13947]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We support a common UN peacekeeping doctrine and have encouraged the UN to develop one. We expect the UN to publish its own short general guidelines for peacekeeping soon. MOD and FCO experts have briefed the UN on "Wider Peacekeeping", the British Army's revised peacekeeping doctrine, and have stayed in touch with UN experts. We are pleased that "Wider Peacekeeping" has been well received and circulated within the UN, and believe that it has already made a valuable contribution to international debate.

  War Crimes (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments about bringing war criminals in the former Yugoslavia to justice. [12381]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are in regular contact with our NATO allies and EU partners concerning all developments in former Yugoslavia.

  The peace agreement obliges the parties to co-operate fully with the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This obligation is also enshrined in the new constitution. In the human rights annexe, the parties are obliged to give unrestricted access to all sites and persons. We strongly support the tribunal's work.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's present guidelines on arms exports to Iraq. [12382]

  Mr. Hanley
  We comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 661, which prevents the sale to Iraq of any weapons or other military equipment.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support proposals at the intergovernmental conference to include national Parliaments in negotiations on the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty. [13772]

  Mr. David Davis
  Under the social protocol agreed at Maastricht, Acts adopted under the annexed social agreement are not applicable to the UK. The Government will not be prepared to relinquish this opt-out at the intergovernmental conference.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13835]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of jobs advertised in each grade in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during the last three months and the number of applicants were as follows:

  Grade

  Vacancies

  Applicants

  DS7D/8

  26

  2,422

  Specialist grades

  4

  511

  Support grade band 2

  4

  154

  HCS grade 6

  1

  62

  East Timor
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist the Australian Government's inquiry into the deaths of Brian Peters, Malcolm Rennie and three Australian-based newsmen, in October 1975 at Balibo, East Timor. [12368]

  Mr. Hanley
  We keep in touch with the Australian authorities and will continue to do so. We are prepared to assist them in any way possible.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Indonesia regarding East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [13952]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed East Timor with the Indonesian Foreign Minister when he visited London last month.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional staff and at what cost his Department has recruited to meet Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic requirements against the proliferation of regimes throughout the world; and if he will make a statement. [12559]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990, 22 new independent countries have come into being. The UK has diplomatic representation on the ground in all but three, and 240
  cross-accreditation of staff in neighbouring countries for the remainder. The total additional requirement of 77 UK-based and 156 locally engaged staff in these new countries has been resourced from within existing provision, through reprioritisation and redeployment. In the same period, eight posts with UK-based and two with locally engaged staff have been closed. Further information will be available in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 1996 departmental report, due to be published in March, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria govern the assessment of the effect of diplomats' declared interests on their representation of the United Kingdom. [12640]

  Mr. Hanley
  Interests declared by members of the diplomatic service are assessed against the need to ensure that officials neither subordinate their official duty to their private interests nor put themselves in a position where their duty and private interests conflict.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries Her Majesty's Government have no diplomatic post; and if he will make a statement. [13619]

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no UK resident diplomatic representation in the following 18 countries:

  Andorra

  Bhutan

  Burundi

  Equatorial Guinea

  Iraq

  Kiribati

  North Korea

  Liberia

  Maldives

  Marshall Islands

  Micronesia

  Moldova

  Nauru

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  San Marino

  Somalia

  Tajikistan

  Tuvalu

  In the following independent countries, the UK is represented by locally engaged staff and/or honorary consuls:

  Afghanistan

  Benin

  Burkina Fasso

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Comoros

  Congo

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Eritrea

  Gabon

  241

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Haiti

  Kyrgyzstan

  Laos

  Liechtenstein

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Monaco

  Niger

  Suriname

  Togo

  Western Samoa

  Sao Tomé and Principe

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways the United Kingdom's negotiating brief for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference will reflect the Government's deregulation policies. [13597]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are pressing vigorously to reduce the regulatory burden of EC law. The paper "UK priorities for Regulatory Reform", which has been deposited in the Library of the House, sets out how we are doing this.

  A number of the UK's proposals for the IGC are designed to help reduce the burden of EC legislation including further entrenchment of the principle of subsidiarity in the treaty and a requirement on the Commission to consult interested parties before making proposals for major new legislation.

  Myanmar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the military junta in Myanmar about human rights; and if he will make a statement. [13948]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our ambassador in Rangoon raised the question of human rights when he called on the Foreign Minister on 27 December 1995.

  At the 50th session of the UN General Assembly, we worked closely with our EU partners and others to secure a critical resolution on the human rights situation in Burma. We will continue to raise our concerns both bilaterally and in international forums.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hat representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh about the proposed elections scheduled for 15 February; and if he will make a statement. [13841]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have made no formal representations to the Government of Bangladesh about the elections, but our high commissioner has been in close contact with the leaders of the main political parties throughout the current political crisis in Bangladesh. We regret the failure to reach an agreed settlement of the long-standing dispute 242
  over the conditions under which elections should be held and the consequent decision of the major Opposition parties not to put forward candidates in the forthcoming elections.

  Morocco
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Moroccan Government regarding the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [13953]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations is seeking to bring about peace in the Western Sahara. The UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara—MINURSO—is charged with the organisation of a referendum. The UK participates fully in Security Council discussions on the subject, and supports the representations made by the Secretary-General and his representatives to both Morocco and Polisario.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying sorties were booked in 1995 by(a) Hercules aircraft and (b) helicopters; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures into those by British military aircraft and those by foreign air forces. [12891]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 2,655 sorties by Hercules aircraft and 49,935 sorties by helicopters were booked in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1995. Three of the Hercules sorties and 33 of the helicopter sorties were flown by non-UK-based foreign aircraft.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying sorties were booked in 1995 by United Kingdom-based United States air force aircraft; and if he will provide a breakdown of these into sorties by(a) F15 aircraft, (b) Hercules aircraft and (c) helicopters. [12892]

  Mr. Soames
  United Kingdom-based US air force aircraft were booked to fly 4,191 sorties in the United Kingdom low flying system during 1995. Of these, 3,660 were F15 sorties, 395 were Hercules sorties and 136 were helicopters.

  MOD Police
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for each royal ordnance site the number of incidents in each of the last five years requiring the attendance of his Department's police; [13193]

  (2) if he will list for the royal ordnance Radway green site the number and type of incidents requiring the attendance of his Department's police in the last 12 months. [13195]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is provided in the table. The category "other incidents" includes minor building insecurities, the presence of persons and objects deemed to be suspicious until investigated and cleared, and mislaying of permits. "Security incidents" include failure to return keys, classified documents not locked
  243
  away, and cabinets left insecure. Although the definition of crime includes theft of both Government and private property, criminal damage and instances of burglary, most incidents in ROFs over this period have been very minor offences.

  Reported incidents

  Bridgwater

  Chorley

  Glascoed

  Nottingham

  Radway Green

  1991

  Crime

  5

  19

  34

  26

  23

  Road traffic accidents

  1

  4

  6

  2

  2

  Industrial accidents

  0

  0

  2

  18

  0

  Security incidents

  23

  66

  120

  185

  85

  Other incidents

  8

  43

  140

  11

  37

  1992

  Crime

  2

  23

  21

  26

  28

  Road traffic accidents

  0

  2

  5

  1

  3

  Industrial accidents

  1

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Security incidents

  50

  58

  68

  138

  25

  Other incidents

  17

  33

  90

  17

  14

  1993

  Crime

  5

  8

  10

  27

  12

  Road traffic accidents

  1

  1

  10

  0

  3

  Industrial accidents

  1

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Security incidents

  55

  46

  22

  40

  10

  Other incidents

  11

  19

  18

  20

  17

  1994

  Crime

  8

  9

  22

  74

  10

  Road traffic accidents

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Industrial accidents

  1

  1

  5

  1

  0

  Security incidents

  22

  15

  33

  38

  12

  Other incidents

  28

  17

  32

  26

  16

  1995

  Crime

  5

  2

  25

  11

  8

  Road traffic accidents

  0

  3

  4

  0

  2

  Industrial accidents

  1

  3

  0

  5

  0

  Security incidents

  26

  30

  83

  37

  12

  Other incidents

  43

  12

  20

  14

  12

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's police currently protecting establishments in the defence industry carry arms. [13192]

  Mr. Soames
  All MOD police officers are firearms-trained and have ready access to arms should the need arise.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and which royal ordnance factories are currently protected by his Department's police; and from which he plans to withdraw them. [13190]

  Mr. Soames
  MOD police are currently deployed at the following royal ordnance sites: Bridgwater, Chorley, Glascoed, Nottingham and Radway green. A recent study on the employment of MOD police in the royal ordnance factories has recommended that MOD police be withdrawn from the Chorley, Radway green and Nottingham sites. Formal consultation between my Department and the MOD police staff associations, regarding thee proposals is now in progress.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access the royal ordnance factory Radway green MOD police have to an armed response vehicle;244
  and what arrangements for such access will be established when his Department's police have been withdrawn. [13189]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD police stationed at royal ordnance Radway green have immediate access to a dedicated armed response vehicle. If MDP are withdrawn from royal ordnance Radway green, following the conclusion of the formal consultation process, the provision of any armed response will be the responsibility of the chief constable of Cheshire.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what training he plans to provide to private security firms before they take over security duties from his Department's police; and if they will be permitted to carry arms; [13194]

  (2) how many private security staff will be employed at the Radway green royal ordnance factory site to replace his Department's existing police. [13196]

  Mr. Soames
  The royal ordnance factories from which it is proposed to withdraw MDP will be protected by company guard force personnel. Their number and training will be for agreement between RO plc and the relevant licensing authority. They would not be permitted to carry arms; nor are there any plans for the MOD to provide training for them. Instructions for the use of private security firms at defence installations require that they should be trained to the levels specified.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each establishment protected at present by his Department's police(a) what that establishment produces and (b) what plans there are to withdraw the police officers; and by what date. [13191]

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

  Porton Down (Experiments)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last reviewed whether the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down should stop its chemical warfare experiments on humans. [13665]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 7 February 1996

  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when his department last reviewed whether the Chemical Defence Establishment should stop its chemical warfare experiments on humans has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.

  The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to provide safe and effective protective measures to safeguard the lives of United Kingdom Armed Forces personnel in the event that chemical and biological weapons are used against them. The role played by the Service volunteer programme is essential in ensuring the equipment provided is effective and does not degrade the performance of military tasks. Service volunteers are involved in the evaluation of new protective equipment and operational procedures and in the development of medical countermeasures against the effects of biological and chemical warfare agents.
  245
  The use of human volunteers is kept constantly under review and people are only ever used where it is both necessary and safe to do so. In recent years there has been no requirement to carry out studies involving the use of live agent to test the efficacy of these physical and medical protective measures. Work in the past conducted at CBDE has involved the exposure of Service volunteers to small quantities of chemical warfare agents in order to assess the incapacitating effects of these small amounts.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down carried out research into the long-term health effects of CS gas; and what were the results of this research. [13662]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alan Simpson dated 7 February 1996

  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment carried out research into the long-term health effects of CS gas; and what were the conclusions of this research has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.

  In the early 1980s CBDE carried out limited studies to assess the long term health effects of exposure to CS gas. The results of these laboratory-based animal studies reinforced by generally available medical evidence suggests that there are no long term effects on people exposed to CS gas in the concentrations commonly employed.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Chemical Defence Estabishment at Porton Down produces an annual report or assessment of its programme of tests and studies using service volunteers(a) for its own internal use and (b) for use within the Ministry of Defence. [13664]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 7 February 1996

  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment produces an annual report or assessment of its programme of tests and studies using service volunteers for its own internal use and for use within the Ministry of Defence has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.

  The Independent Ethics Committee which reviews all of the work involving Service volunteers carried out at CBDE produces an annual report detailing the involvement of volunteers in study protocols. This report, which contains defence sensitive material, is circulated internally within CBDE and the Ministry of Defence.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if information derived from the Chemical Defence Establishment's experiments with humans is shared with Canada and the United States of America under the 246
  provisions of the 1980 memorandum of understanding on chemical and biological defence. [13663]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information arising from work involving the use of service volunteers in research programmes carried out at CBDE have been shared with the United States and Canada as part of the collaboration promoted by the memorandum of understanding in question.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy, as part of his investigation into Gulf war syndrome, to investigate whether any of the chemical agents sold to Iraq by United Kingdom companies contributed to the damage done to British soldiers and auxiliary personnel in the Gulf war. [13434]

  Mr. Soames
  No. There is no scientific or medical evidence that any chemical warfare agents were used in the Gulf war.

  Aircraft Proximity Incident (Perth)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Royal Air Force personnel provided a pre-flight briefing to the crew of the Portuguese air force helicopter involved in an aircraft proximity incident at Perth airfield on 6 June 1994; and what was the minimum height authorised for the aircraft's flight in low flying area 14. [13253]

  Mr. Soames
  Briefing was given and the minimum height authorised for the sorties was 100 ft minimum separation distance.

  Procurement Ethics Code
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Crown servants who worked within his Department have moved since December 1993 within two years to companies with which they had dealings or involvement while holding post at the Department; and if all persons taking up positions directly related to their previous departmental posts applied for permission in accordance with section 9 of the code of procurement ethics. [13979]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Some 603 applications were made under the business appointment rule. There is no requirement for staff to report whether or not an appointment is taken up. We are not aware of any breaches of the rules.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's employees are not covered by the Ministry of Defence's code of procurement ethics. [13978]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The code of procurement ethics provides a synopsis for industry of my Department's overall stance and policy. It does not supplant the detailed rules in existing departmental publications which apply to all the Department's staff.
  247
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Crown servants in his Department have breached sections(a) or (b) of section 9 of the code of procurement ethics since December 1993. [13977]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Not as far as we are aware.

  Magherafelt Royal Irish Regiment Base
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to remove all structures similar to the one in which a fire occurred at Magherafelt Royal Irish Regiment base. [12592]

  Mr. Soames
  The fire are Magherafelt on 30 April 1994 took place in a Widgeon type structure, being used as sleeping accommodation. Since that time, many have been replaced by more modern structures and some have been allocated to other uses. At the time of the fire, there were 44 Widgeon buildings in Northern Ireland, of which 31 were being used as sleeping accommodation. As of 5 February 1996, the total number had been reduced to 33, of which 15 were used for sleeping accommodation. After a thorough survey of these 15 buildings, a range of additional safety measures is being implemented. I am satisfied that all responsible steps are being taken to minimise the risk of fire in the remaining buildings of this type.

  Stores Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 81, what factors underlay the decision not to record items valued at less than £100,000 which have been (a) stolen and (b) lost. [13163]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Losses need to be individually noted in the appropriation account only if they exceed £100,000 in value. Hence, except as regards fraud and theft, a central record of losses below that figure is not maintained, and records are kept by individual budget areas. Cases of fraud or theft are recorded centrally in summary terms.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1990–91 the (i) total recruitment budget, (ii) the total number of recruits and (iii) the average cost per recruit broken down between the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. [13596]

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

  Export Licences
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy in respect of the export of missiles which are capable of post delivery conversion from conventional to nuclear use; on what occasions United Kingdom export licences have been granted for such missiles since 1980; and if he will list for each occasion the destination country, and the country given as the end user. [13986]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Exports of missiles require export licences, as do any other defence exports. The consideration given to licence applications covers many 248
  factors and in the case of missiles includes the obligations we have accepted under the missile technology control regime. This international regime lays down the guidelines and parameters to cover the export of missiles which are capable of nuclear use. It has not been the practice to give details of licences granted for the export of defence equipment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which dates since 1980 form F680 export licences were granted and subsequently renewed for the export of precision guided missiles from the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates. [13985]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The MOD form 680 clearance procedure is not in itself an export licence procedure. It is designed to give companies guidance on the likely Government reaction to an export licence application. In the same way as for export licences, information on MOD form 680 decisions are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministers responsible for the authorisation of F680 export licences during the periods(a) June to December 1986, (b) June to December 1988 and (c) June to December 1990. [13956]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  DTI Ministers are responsible for authorising export licences. The Ministers for Defence Procurement responsible for authorising F680 guidance were, during the periods(a) and (b) Lord Trefgarne, and during period (c) Mr. Alan Clark.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grade I and grade II listed buildings were(a) demolished and (b) otherwise lost in (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995. [13384]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department records, on a financial year basis, cases where we are notified, under the provisions of circular 8/87, that a local authority intends to grant consent for the total demolition of a listed building, together with the consents which the Department itself issues. The following figures show the numbers of principal and curtilage buildings affected by these consents.

  Grade I

  Grade II*

  Grade II

  1993ߝ94

  0

  2

  62

  1994ߝ95

  1

  12

  79

  Records are not kept centrally on the extent to which consents are implemented or losses take place without the need to apply for consent.

  British Library
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to extend the capacity of the St. Pancras British library's building when capacity has been reached. [8008]
  249
  Mr. Sproat
  We have no present plans to extend the British library's new St. Pancras building once it has been completed. However, that does not necessarily preclude further library development. For example, the capital costs could be incurred by the private sector under the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend has agreed to consider proposals, and the assessment of the library's future needs which they embody, which the library has put to her for further development on the surplus land to the north of the St. Pancras construction site. The new St. Pancras building will provide considerable improvements in book storage conditions, and in the flexibility with which readers can be served and accommodated in the reading rooms. Like any national library in receipt of published material under the legal deposit system, the British library's collections are growing in size, and the library's plans include the need for material to be stored, as well as at St. Pancras, at its northern site in Boston Spa where there is scope for future expansion.

  UK Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the new chief executive of the UK Sports Council will be appointed; and what experience in sports administration will be required. [12883]

  Mr. Sproat
  An announcement about the filling of this post will be made soon.

  The chief executive of the UK Sports Council should have top level management experience and a thorough knowledge and fervent appreciation of sport and related issues at both national and international level. The person should also have well-developed leadership and motivational qualities, acute financial awareness together with excellent interpersonal and presentational skills.

  Eurimages
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what external advice she has sought on the contractual effects of Her Majesty's Government's decision to withdraw from Eurimages. [12988]

  Mr. Sproat
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the additional amount of investment leveraged by Eurimages in each of the last three years. [12986]

  Mr. Sproat
  Eurimages usually completes the funding package by contributing around 10 per cent. of the budget for films which have already attracted funding from a number of other public and private sector sources, and recoups about 3 per cent. of its contributions overall. It is not possible to identify the amount of additional private investment which might otherwise have been secured.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost of her Department's subscription to Eurimages in each of the last three years. [12927]

  Mr. Sproat
  The cost of the Department's subscription to Eurimages in each of the last three years has been as follows: £1,318,856 in 1993; £1,913,206 in 1994 and £2,469,902 in 1995.
  250
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many British films have received assistance from Eurimages in each of the last three years. [12985]

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of films awarded Eurimages funding and involving UK co-production companies since the UK joined in April 1993 was 12 in 1993, 21 in 1994 and 22 in 1995.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what notice her Department gave of its intention to withdraw from Eurimages; and to what extent this was in line with the relevant Council of Europe resolution. [12987]

  Mr. Sproat
  Normal confidentiality requirements as to the contents of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement and my Department's spending plans did not allow for prior notice to be given of our intention to withdraw. My Department will, of course, abide by obligations arising from the relevant Council of Europe resolution.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to seek powers to place a limit on the size of national lottery prizes; and if she will make a statement. [12025]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]Directions issued by the Secretary of State under section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, limit the number of jackpot rollovers to three.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10960]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (a) In real terms:

  (i) staff costs

  7,125

  32,260

  (ii) information technology

  —

  —

  (iii) other costs

  —

  —

  (b) In cash terms:

  (i) staff costs

  6,630

  32,260

  (ii) information technolgy

  —

  —

  (iii)Other costs

  —

  —

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10959]
  251
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]The Department of National Heritage has not undertaken any PFI projects. The following costs relate to projects in its two agencies and in the non-departmental public bodies which it sponsors:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (a) Real terms:

  (i) legal fees

  8,600

  1,000

  (ii) publicity costs

  —

  10,000

  (iii) accountancy fees

  —

  100,000

  (iv) management consultancy fees

  30,000

  49,000

  (b) Cash terms:

  (i) legal fees

  8,000

  1,000

  (ii) publicity costs

  —

  10,000

  (iii) accountancy fees

  —

  100,000

  (iv) management consultancy fees

  27,850

  49,000

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of her Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date; and if she will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11513]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]The Department of National Heritage spent £20,033 on newspapers and magazines in 1993–94, and £34,806 in 1994–95. To date, the Department has spent £18,519 in 1995–96. The publications purchased for the Department in 1995–96 are:

  NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS CURRENTLY PURCHASED BY THE LIBRARY ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Accountancy

  Accountancy Age

  Ancient Monuments Society Newsletter

  Ancient Monuments Society Transactions

  Antique Collector

  Apollo

  Architects Journal and AJ Focus

  Architectural Review

  Art Newspaper

  Arts Monthly

  Arts Review

  ASLIB Proceedings

  Athletics Weekly

  Autocar

  Book Marketing and updates

  Bookseller

  Broadcast

  Broadcasting and Cable

  Building

  Building and Building—Special Supplement

  Building Design and Supplements

  Burlington Magazine

  252

  Cable and Satellite Express

  Cable and Satellite Europe

  Campaign

  Caterer and Hotel Keeper

  Construction Repair

  Context

  Country Life

  County News

  Culturelink

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Star

  Daily Telegraph

  Disability Now

  Diver Magazine

  Economist

  Education

  Employment Gazette

  Equal Opportunities Review

  Estate Times

  European

  European Journal of Cultural Policy

  Evening Standard 1st Edition

  Evening Standard Final Edition

  Financial Times

  Financial Times—New Media Markets

  Golf World

  Good Housekeeping

  Guardian

  Heritage

  Heritage Development

  Holiday Which

  In Britain

  Independent

  Independent on Sunday

  Industrial Relations Review and Report

  Information UK Outlooks

  Information World Review

  Interchanges

  International Journal of Cultural Property

  Internet and Comms Today

  Investors Chronicle

  Journal of Architectural Conservation

  Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

  Journal of Planning and Environment Law and Occasional Papers

  Journal of the Society of Archivists

  Journal of Travel Research

  Leisure Management and Leisure Opportunities

  Leisure Week

  Library and Information News

  Library Journal

  Library Manager

  Local Government Chronicle

  Mail on Sunday

  Marketing Week

  Media Monitor

  253

  Monitor

  Municipal Journal

  Municipal Review

  Museums Journal

  National Gallery Technical Bulletin

  New Civil Engineer

  New Library World and Librarians World

  New Scientist

  New Statesman and Society

  News of the World

  Observer

  Online and CD ROM Review

  Online World

  Open Rugby League

  Parliamentary Monitor

  Personnel Journal

  Perspectives on Architecture

  Planning

  Private Eye

  Professional Manager

  Public Finance

  Public Policy Review

  Publishing

  Radio Magazine

  Radio Times

  Rugby World and Post

  Satellite TV Europe

  Satellite TV Finance

  SCONUL Newsletter

  Screen Digest

  Screen Finance

  Screen International

  Spectator

  Sponsorship News

  Sports Industry

  Stage and TV Today

  Sun

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Taxation

  Tennis World

  Time Out

  Times

  Times Educational Supplement

  Tourism Intelligence Quarterly

  Tourism Management

  Trace Magazine

  Travel and Tourism Analyst

  Travel Trade Gazette

  Travel Trade Gazette Europa

  Travel Weekly

  UK Press Gazette

  Variety

  Vine—Very Informal Newsletter

  Visits to Tourist Attractions

  254

  Wall Street Journal

  What Satellite and TV

  Which?

  Wisden Cricket Monthly

  Yours

  Religious Buildings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 250, if she will consider removing the ecclesiastical exemption from statutory listed building and conservation area controls in respect of the former Roman Catholic cathedral in Middlesbrough. [13005]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: My right hon. Friend sees no reason to do so. The building is still in ecclesiastical use as a parish church. I understand that discussions are taking place between the Church authorities and English Heritage on a programme of major repairs.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 250, if she will consider removing the ecclesiastical exemption from statutory listed building and conservation area controls in respect of the Benedictine abbey church at Farnborough, Hampshire. [13006]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]The abbey does not fall within the terms of the ecclesiastical exemption retained by the Roman Catholic Church. Normal statutory listed building and conservation area controls therefore apply to it. I understand that the local planning authority is currently considering an application for listed building consent for works at the abbey.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  War Pension Appeals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Mr. Andrew Dickson's war pension appeal, presented on 28 November 1992, reference M2910162, will be heard. [13623]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The pensions appeal tribunals received the supplementary statement of case from the War Pensions Agency on 15 November 1995. However, the pensions appeal tribunals have not yet received a response to their letter of 26 October 1994 to Mr. Dickson's representatives requesting information about the listing of the appeal. A reminder was sent on 2 February 1996, and once a response is received, the pensions appeal tribunals will arrange a hearing for the appeal.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Mr. John Middleton's war pension appeal, presented on 8 March 1995, reference M3101179, will be heard. [13622]
  255
  Mr. Evans
  Mr. Middleton's appeal was received by the pensions appeal tribunals on 31 May 1995. On 4 July, Mr. Middleton's representatives advised the pensions appeal tribunals that he would be unable to attend his hearing due to ill health and requested that a domiciliary visit be arranged. Regrettably, the pensions appeal tribunals failed to act on this letter. I should like to apologise to Mr. Middleton for this error and for the delay it has caused to his case.

  The president of the pensions appeal tribunals has authorised a domiciliary visit which is expected to take place later this month. Thereafter, Mr. Middleton's appeal will be listed for hearing as a matter of urgency.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines he has issued to the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the level of charge of offenders for carrying offensive weapons. [13264]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions, and through her the Crown Prosecution Service, is supervised by the Attorney-General. The service, when dealing with cases involving offensive weapons, applies the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors.

  The law makes a distinction between the carrying in a public place of offensive weapons on the one hand and bladed or pointed instruments on the other. Possessing an offensive weapon is the more serious charge. Offensive weapons fall into three categories: those made for causing injury, those adapted for causing injury, or those intended by the defendant to cause injury. The offence of carrying of bladed instruments does not require proof that the defendant intended to use it to cause personal injury and carries a lesser penalty. The choice of charge will depend upon the evidence which is available to support the charge and is selected by the Crown Prosecution Service to reflect the seriousness of the offending, to give the court adequate sentencing powers, and to enable the evidence to be presented in a clear and simple way.

  The Offensive Weapons Bill currently going through Parliament will increase the maximum sentences for offences under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to four years' imprisonment and two years' imprisonment respectively.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Union Flag (Armagh RUC Station)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Union flag was flown at Armagh RUC station on (i) Christmas day 1995 and (ii) new year's day 1996; and what arrangements have been made to fly the Union flag at Armagh RUC station on the remainder of the specified occasions in 1996. [11716]
  256
  Sir John Wheeler
  I regret that the Union flag was not flown at Armagh RUC station on 25 December 1995 and 1 January 1996, due to an unfortunate oversight which will not occur again.

  Arrangements have been made to ensure that the Union flag is flown, in accordance with RUC policy.

  Seed Potatoes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantities of seed potatoes are being imported into Northern Ireland from the Netherlands; what evidence he has evaluated into the presence of brown rot in imported Dutch seed potatoes; what arrangements are in place to ensure that brown rot disease is not brought into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [12940]

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no record of any imports into Northern Ireland of seed potatoes produced in the Netherlands in 1995. It follows that there is no evidence available regarding brown rot in imported Dutch seed potatoes.

  Commission decision 95/506/EC laid down additional requirements to be met where potatoes produced in the Netherlands in 1995 are being traded. This decision enables member states to take additional measures to monitor Dutch potatoes entering their territory. The Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 requires prior written notification of the intention to land in Northern Ireland potatoes originating in the Netherlands. Any such potatoes landed will be subject to detention, inspection and testing for brown rot.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many intensive care beds were available in each of the Northern Ireland health boards in each of the last seven years. [12560]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the average number of intensive care beds which were available in wards open overnight in each of the Northern Ireland health board areas for each of the last seven years.

  Year/board

  Eastern1

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1988–89

  27

  6

  6

  10

  1989–90

  31

  6

  6

  10

  1990–91

  29

  6

  6

  10

  1991–92

  29

  6

  6

  10

  1992–93

  28

  6

  6

  10

  1993–94

  27

  6

  6

  10

  1994–95

  30

  10

  6

  10

  1 The above figure for the Eastern board area includes six beds at the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children.

  School Rolls
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are currently educated in maintained primary schools; and what were the figures for the last three years. [12585]
  257
  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 95,207 pupils were educated in maintained primary schools in 1994–95. The number of pupils educated in maintained primary schools for the previous three years are as follows:

  1991–92: 95,787

  1992–93: 96,047

  1993–94: 95,757

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are currently educated in controlled primary schools in Northern Ireland; and what were the figures for each of the last three years. [12586]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 91,435 pupils were educated in controlled primary schools in Northern Ireland in 1994–95. The number of pupils educated in controlled primary schools in Northern Ireland for the previous three years are as follows:

  1991–92: 90,021

  1992–93: 90,684

  1993–94: 91,089

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils(a) are currently and (b) have been in each of the last three years educated in maintained secondary and grammar schools. [12593]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 48,692 pupils were educated in maintained secondary schools in 1994–95. The number of pupils educated in maintained secondary schools for the previous three years are as follows:

  1991–92: 46,580

  1992–93: 47,274

  1993–94: 48,112

  There are no maintained grammar schools in Northern Ireland.

  Rents
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the percentage changes in each of the last seven years for rents paid to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and private landlords (housing sector); and if he will list the differential between these figures and the rate of inflation. [12587]

  Mr. Moss
  The annual percentage change in rents is applied to both Northern Ireland Housing Executive rents and regulated tenancies registered with the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland. The changes for each of the last seven years plus the differential between those figures and the rates of inflation are as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Rent increase

  Difference between rent increase and rate of inflation

  1989–90

  10.25

  +2.55

  1990–91

  10.00

  +0.70

  1991–92

  8.00

  +3.50

  1992–93

  9.50

  +6.90

  1993–94

  7.75

  +5.85

  1994–95

  7.50

  +4.86

  1995–96

  7.25

  +4.05

  258
  Rents of uncontrolled tenancies are open market and information on changes in rental levels is not available.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present average rent paid by Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants and what assessment he has made of equivalent rents in the private housing sector. [12588]

  Mr. Moss
  The present average rent paid by Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants is £31.65 per week. Statistics on rental levels in the private housing sector are not collected.

  Student Grants
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the regulations relating to the award of student grants in Northern Ireland. [12589]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Students Awards Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SR 1995/1).

  State Pensions
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of relating the state pensions to the inflation rate and average earnings. [12594]

  Mr. Moss
  None. The rates of state pensions are set for the United Kingdom and are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11427]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]Expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland Office expenditure on newspapers and magazines is as follows:

  1993–94: £699,222

  1994–95: £575,711

  1995–96: £375,987 (to date)

  Newspapers and magazines purchased by the Departments of Economic Development, Agriculture, Education and the Northern Ireland Office are listed:

  Farm Development Review

  Farmers Guardian

  Farmers Weekly

  Farming and Conservation

  Farming News

  Feed Mix

  Feedstuffs

  The Field

  Fish Farmer

  Fish Farming International

  Fish Trader

  Fishing News International

  259

  Food and Horticulture Ireland

  Food Ireland

  Food Magazine

  Food Manufacturer

  Food Processing

  Foodshop

  Forestry and British Timber

  The Garden

  Grass Farmer

  Grocer

  Grower

  Hoard's Dairyman

  The Horse

  Horticulture and Landscape Ireland

  Horticulture Week

  Industrial and Commercial Training

  Irish Computer

  Irish Dairy Industry Magazine

  Irish Farmers Monthly

  Irish Farmers Journal

  Irish Field

  Irish Skipper

  The Living Earth

  Lotus Magazine

  Marketing

  Marketing Week

  The Marque

  Meat and Poultry

  Meat International

  Meat Manufacturing and Marketing

  Meat Trader

  Meat Trades Journal

  Milk Industry

  Financial Times

  Times

  Daily Telegraph

  Guardian

  Independent

  Daily Mail

  Daily Express

  Sun

  Daily Star

  Morning Star

  Irish Post

  Evening Standard

  Irish Independent

  Irish Times

  Mail on Sunday

  News of the World

  Observer

  Sunday Express

  Sunday People

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Independent on Sunday

  Irish Independent on Sunday

  Daily Mirror

  260

  News Letter

  Belfast Telegraph

  European

  Armagh Observer

  Antrim Times

  Ballymena Guardian

  Ballymena Times

  Ballymoney Times

  Banbridge Chronicle

  Coleraine Constitution

  County Down Spectator

  Derry Journal

  Down Democrat

  Down Recorder

  Dromore Leader

  Fermanagh Herald

  Impartial Reporter

  Larne Times

  Londonderry Sentinel

  Lurgan Mail

  Mourne Observer

  Newry Reporter

  Newtownabbey Times

  Newtownards Chronicle

  Portadown Times

  Roe Valley Sentinel

  Sunday Business Post

  Sunday Life

  Sunday Tribune

  Sunday World

  Strabane Weekly

  Tyrone Constitution

  Tyrone Courier

  Ulster Gazette

  Ulster Herald

  Ulster Star

  Ireland's Saturday Night

  Irish News

  Coleraine Chronicle

  Dungannon Observer

  The Examiner

  Mid Ulster Mail

  Northern Constitution

  Economist

  New Statesman

  New Society

  Police

  The Phoenix

  Private Eye

  Listener

  Spectator

  TV Times

  UK Press Gazette

  Newsweek

  Magill

  Dublin Opinion

  Pimms

  Time Out

  261

  Scotsman

  New Scientist

  Hansard

  Linenhall Review

  Macuser

  Management Today

  Menswear

  Mining Magazine

  Motorship

  New Scientist

  Newsweek International

  Nikei Weekly

  P. C. Direct

  Plastics and Rubber Weekly

  Practical Motorist

  Printing World

  Stubbs Gazette

  Tablewear International

  Time

  Ulster Business

  Windows User

  ABC Rail Guide

  Accountancy

  Belfast Gazette

  Business and Finance

  Business Traveller

  Cabinet Maker and Retail Furnisher

  Campaign

  Carpet and Floor Covering Review

  Caterer and Hotel Keeper

  Certified Accountant

  Construction News

  Contract Journal

  Cranes Today

  Economic Affairs

  Education

  Electrical Review

  Electrical Times

  Electronic Times

  Electronics Today International

  Engineer

  Enterprise Magazine

  Far Eastern Economic Review

  Farmweek

  Fishing News

  Flight International

  Fortune

  House Magazine

  Inside Microsoft Windows

  International Business Week

  Investors Chronicle

  Irish America

  Irish Farmers Journal

  Japan Times Weekly

  Japanese Motor Business

  Knitting International

  Architects' Journal

  Building

  262

  Byte

  Guardian Weekly Fortnight

  Personal Computer World

  Times Educational Supplement

  Times Educational Supplement (Scotland)

  Times Higher Education

  Times Literary Supplement

  AV Magazine

  Agricultural Supply Industry

  Amateur Gardening

  Angling Ireland

  Angling Times

  Aquaculture Ireland

  Aquaculture Magazine

  Arable Farming

  The Bookseller

  British Farmer

  Broiler Industry

  Care on the Road

  Checkout

  Checkout Fresh

  Co-Op Ireland

  Creative Review

  Crops

  Dairy and Food Industry Magazine

  Dairy Farmer

  Dairy Industries International

  Dairy Industries Newsletter

  Deer Farmer

  Deer Farming

  Ecology and Farming

  Enact

  Egg Industry

  Electronics and Wireless World

  Equestrain Trade News

  Eurofood

  Eurofood and Drink

  Eurolink

  Executive Woman

  Farm and Food

  Farm Contractor

  Misset Pigs

  Misset World Poultry

  Motor Boat and Yachting

  Nursery and Garden Centre

  Pacemaker and Thoroughbred Breeder

  Paris Match

  Pig Farming

  Pig Industry

  Pig International

  Pigletter

  Potato News

  Potato Review

  Potato Newsletter

  Poultry Digest

  Poultry International

  Poultry World

  263

  Practical Farm Ideas

  Practical PC

  Safety and Health Practitioner

  Salmon, Trout and Sea Trout

  Scottish Beekeeper

  Scottish Farmer

  Scottish Fish Farmer

  Scottish Fishing Weekly

  Seafood International

  Sheep Farmer

  Supermarketing

  Tillage Farmer

  Timber Grower

  Trout and Salmon

  Turkey World

  Turkeys

  Value Retailing

  Visa Magazine

  What Personal Computer

  Number of monthly deaths with a mention of hypothermia (ICD1 991.6) in women aged 60 years and over, by health region of usual residence, 19942

  Health region

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar.

  Apr.

  May

  Jun.

  Jul.

  Aug.

  Sep.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Not stated

  Total

  Northern

  4

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  14

  Yorkshire

  3

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  0

  14

  Trent

  4

  2

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  16

  East Anglia

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  12

  North West Thames

  4

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  11

  North East Thames

  3

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  15

  South East Thames

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  0

  13

  South West Tames

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Wessex

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  7

  Oxford

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  9

  South Western

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  13

  West Midlands

  5

  6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  20

  Mersey

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  North Western

  4

  5

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  15

  Wales

  2

  5

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  15

  Total

  45

  34

  10

  13

  8

  6

  2

  7

  10

  15

  12

  24

  1

  187

  1 International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision.

  Provisional.

  Number of monthly deaths with a mention of hypothermia (ICD1 991.6) in men aged 65 years and over, by health region of usual residence, 19942

  Health region

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar.

  Apr.

  May

  Jun.

  Jul.

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Total

  Northern

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  5

  10

  Yorkshire

  3

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  11

  Trent

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  East Anglia

  3

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  9

  North-west Thames

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  8

  North-east Thames

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  8

  South-east Thames

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  7

  South-west Thames

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Wessex

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Oxford

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  South Western

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  8

  West Midlands

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  11

  Mersey

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  North Western

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Wales

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Total

  22

  25

  6

  8

  2

  4

  3

  1

  6

  5

  8

  14

  104

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  264

  What to Buy for Business

  What's new in Computing

  What's new in Farming

  Information on newspapers and magazines purchased by the Departments of Finance and Personnel, Environment, and Health and Social Services could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned in the death certificate took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over in (1) each month of 1994 and (2) each month of 1995 by region in England and Wales. [13263]

  Mr. Horam
  Information for 1994 is shown in the table. Figures for 1995 could be provided only at disproportionate cost, at this time.

  Neurotic and Depressive Disorders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis his Department has made of the link between unemployment and(a) neurotic and (b) depressive disorders. [13270]

  Mr. Bowis
  The "OPCS Surveys of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain" contain information on the association between employment status and levels of psychiatric morbidity. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Emergency Beds
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which areas he has made extra funding available for emergency beds; how many extra beds have been established for each area; and at what cost. [13722]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to decide what health care to purchase, taking into account national priorities and local needs. Individual national health service trusts need to ensure that bed numbers are carefully matched to contracted workloads and are responsive to patient flows, including the local rate of emergency admissions.

  Information on medical beds is not available centrally. Details of the average daily number of available acute beds in each trust are published annually in "Bed Availability in England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) directives he has issued to health authorities, (b) other measures he has taken and (c) meetings he has had, since 1 November 1995, for the purpose of expanding the provision of NHS dentistry in all local areas of English health authorities. [13442]

  Mr. Malone
  I have frequent meetings, including some with hon. Members, to discuss national health service dentistry. The NHS executive board has also considered the issue. The Government are committed to an effective and accessible NHS dental service. We shall continue to take steps, working with local NHS management as necessary, to improve services.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will monitor the levels of serious illness in areas where there is opencast mining generating dust. [13486]

  Mr. Horam
  Research on the effects on health of air pollution, including that of dust from opencast mining, has been referred to the independent advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. COMEAP has considered the suggestion that opencast coal mining might have a harmful effect on the health of those living close to the workings. A study by Temple, 1992, was considered and COMEAP agreed that the results reported were consistent with an association between the opening 266
  of an opencast mine and an increase in asthma consultations. However, the committee considered that local awareness of the opening of the mine and concern about its possible effects on health were plausible explanations of the association and that further work would be needed to sustain a causal hypothesis.

  In 1994 the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council issued a joint call for proposals for research into air pollution and respiratory disease. The Department is currently considering the proposals that were put forward, including studies on the health effects of opencast mining.

  Waiting Times (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average waiting list time for patients in the Northumberland health authority for each year since 1992. [13484]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally. Information on waiting lists at hospitals in Northumberland is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Drug-related Deaths (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his calculation of the number of people who died in Northumberland health authority as the result of the use of medicinal drugs in each of the last five years(a) accidentally, (b) in cases involving suicide or self-inflicted injury and (c) in cases involving injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted; and which drug each death involved. [13562]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows the number of people usually resident in the Northumberland health authority area who have died as a result of poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances, ICD1 codes 960–979, in the years 1988 to 1992, under the headings of accident, suicide and self-inflicted injury, and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted. Whether or not these were prescribed drugs is not recorded at death. However, most of the categories of these substances are available only on prescription. Major exceptions are "analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics", ICD1 code 965 and "other unspecified drugs and medicaments", ICD1 code 977. The drugs implicated in these deaths are published each year in tables 9 and 10 of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication series DH4 which is available in the Library.

  Deaths as a result of poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances, ICD1 960–979, to residents of Northumberland health authority areas 1988–1992

  ICD1 code

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  960–979

  Accident

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury

  7

  6

  7

  2

  5

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  8

  6

  7

  6

  4

  267

  Deaths as a result of poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances, ICD1 960–979, to residents of Northumberland health authority areas 1988–1992

  ICD1 code

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  965

  Accident

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury

  3

  0

  5

  0

  2

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  2

  1

  2

  5

  1

  977

  Accident

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Clinical Psychology
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to(a) increase the efficiency of current courses in clinical psychology, (b) increase the umber of training places in clinical psychology and (c) ensure that sufficient clinical psychologists are available to meet the needs of the health services within the next five years. [13682]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for local employers to determine the staff needed to deliver services. Since 1993, the number of training places for clinical psychologists has continued to increase to meet growing demand. From April 1996 it will be for education and training consortia to assess future demand and the effectiveness of the provision of courses. The national health service executive will maintain a national overview.

  Osteoporosis
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which NHS hospitals are currently operating bone density scanners for osteoporosis; [13729]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the accessibility of NHS bone density scanners to women who require screening. [13730]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the location of bone densitometry scanners in individual hospitals is not available centrally. The recent survey by the National Osteoporosis Society suggested that 38 per cent. of health authorities are specifically funding bone densitometry. It is for individual health authorities to decide locally what priority to give to making bone densitometry scans available to those who need them.

  NHS Trusts (Outcome Indicators)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish outcome indicators for NHS trusts in England similar to those published by the Secretary of State for Scotland in December 1994. [13732]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service executive is working with the joint consultants committee to promote the development of new clinical indicators, which will enable aspects of NHS trusts' performance to be 268
  examined. It will be necessary to pilot and test any proposals before publication. Some of the clinical outcome indicators published in Scotland require the linkage of patient records in a way not yet routinely available in England, and accordingly there are no plans at present to publish such indicators.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new cases of oral cancer, including cancers of the lip, tongue and oral hypo-pharynx, have been recorded since 1989; [13769]

  (2) how many oral cancer cases reported in each of the last three years were of people aged (a) under 15 years, (b) 15 to 19 years, (c) 20 to 35 years, (d) 36 to 64 years and (e) over 65 years; and how many were (i) male and
  (ii) female. [13787]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisional numbers of oral cancers' diagnosed in 1990 in England and Wales are shown in the table.

  Age

  Males

  Females

  Total

  0–14

  4

  5

  9

  15–19

  7

  0

  7

  20–34

  34

  21

  55

  35–64

  824

  347

  1,171

  65 and over

  878

  612

  1,490

  Total

  1,747

  985

  2,732

  1 Oral cancer is defined as: cancer of the lip (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, 140), tongue (ICD9 141), gum (ICD9 143), floor of mouth (ICD9 144), other and unspecified parts of the mouth (ICD9 145), oropharynx (ICD9 146), nasopharynx (ICD9 147) and hypopharynx (ICD9 148). Cancers of the salivary glands (ICD9 142) have been excluded as they are not normally grouped with oral cancers.

  Figures for 1988 and 1989 are contained in the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys annual reference volumes, "Cancer statistics, registrations", series MB1 numbers 21 and 22, respectively; copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to draw the attention of younger people to the dangers of drug taking, with particular reference to Ecstasy. [13817]

  Mr. Bowis
  We launched a campaign to promote awareness of the national drugs helpline in November 1995. This featured a radio advertisement focusing on the risks to health from Ecstasy and a new information booklet for young people on the dangers of drugs and solvents. We shall shortly be launching a phase of advertising aimed at young people, which will focus on specific drugs, including Ecstasy. This will include wider advertising on independent radio and in the youth press, together with advertising aimed at parents in journals and magazines.

  These campaigns are part of the Government's overall strategy, "Tackling Drugs Together." The work in this area within the national curriculum is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was his role in the appointment of(a) the non-executive directors and (b) Mrs. Kirby-Harris as chair of the Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust; and what consultations were held prior to Mrs. Kirby-Harris being appointed. [13809]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed two of the current non-executive directors of Cornwall Healthcare national health service trust on 1 November 1995. His predecessor appointed the current chairman on 7 March 1994. Mrs. Kirby-Harris was appointed by his predecessor on 1 April 1993 after consideration of the candidates recommended by the regional health authority chairman.

  Hospitals (Patients' Money)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was held in hospital accounts in respect of the balance of patients' money; for each of the last five years for each NHS region. [13781]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. Medicines and Food (Dangers) Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he proposes to give the public on the danger of combinations of medicines and food in(a) neutralizing the effects of the medicine and (b) causing strokes and heart attacks. [13162]

  Mr. Malone
  Where there is a known interaction between a human medicinal product and food, advice is already provided in the product information, which is authorised by the Licensing Authority, and in the British National Formulary, which is sent free of charge to all doctors. Doctors are responsible for discussing with their patients treatment options and any risks of treatment, this discussion should include information on likely side-effects and interactions with foods or other medicines. To supplement advice from the doctor many medicines have patient information leaflets, which include advice on how to take the medicine, any side-effects and whether there are any interactions with foods or other medicines. By the end of 1998 all medicinal products will have patient information leaflets, unless the relevant information can be included on the label. Pharmacists are also available for advice on medicines supplied through a pharmacy. In addition, patients taking monoamine oxidase inhibitors receive a treatment card which lists foods which should not be eaten while taking these medicines and for 14 days afterwards.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 246, how he monitors the effectiveness of breast screening programmes in meeting "The Health of the Nation" targets for breast cancer. [13709]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on breast cancer screening has been collected since 1988–89, and is published in "Summary Information from Form KC62 England",270
  copies of which are available in the Library. The data were collated on the Department's behalf by the cancer screening evaluation unit.

  Health Economics Consortia
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health economics consortia have been set up in the United Kingdom; what capital the Government have allocated to these units; what is their remit and to whom they are accountable; and how many district health authorities, or other public bodies, have commissioned reports on service provision from these units. [10354]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Health economics consortia are independent, self-financing bodies which provide economic advice and analysis to the NHS on a consultancy basis. It is for health authorities to consider what information they require to support their strategic objective of maximising the health benefits of their local populations and how best to obtain it. No information on the use of health economics consortia is held centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Signs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on the proposal to allow business sponsorships of, and advertising on, traffic signs. [13675]

  Mr. Watts
  Advertising, or displaying messages acknowledging business sponsorship, on traffic signs is not permitted under current legislation We are developing proposals for public consultation on options for amending legislation.

  British Railways Board
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what instructions he has given to the chairman of the British Railways Board regarding the role of the British Railways Board and its subsidiaries after April 1997; and if he will make a statement; [13925]

  (2) what instructions he has given to the chairman of the British Railways Board regarding the rate at which subsidiaries of the British Railways Board are to be transferred to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [13926]

  Mr. Watts
  The objectives set by my right hon. Friend for the chairman of the British Railways Board for 1995–96 were set out in a letter to the chairman on 26 June 1995, as announced in my right hon. Friend's answer of 4 July 1995 to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence),Official Report, column 117. Announcements about the chairman's objectives for 1996–97 and subsequently will be made in due course.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personnel are currently employed by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising; and how many he expects
  271
  to be employed in the financial year 1996–97 and 1997–98. [13932]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of staff in post at the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising as at 1 January 1996 was 88. The estimated number of staff required in 1996–97 is 121; in 1997–98 the estimated number is 136. The number of staff will rise to manage the franchises that have been let and to deal with the emerging franchises as the momentum continues to build. The figures include staff directly employed and those on loan or secondment from other parts of the civil service, the railway industry and the private sector.

  Rail Privatisation (Safety)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has conducted into the likely effects of rail privatisation on safety within the railway system; and if he will make a statement on the results. [13770]

  Mr. Watts
  The independent Health and Safety Commission was asked in 1992 to examine in detail the implications for safety of the Government's privatisation proposals. We have implemented in full the Commission's recommendations for a new regulatory and safety management system.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that safety within the railway system will not deteriorate after privatisation. [13771]

  Mr. Watts
  We have implemented in full the independent Health and Safety Commission's recommendations for ensuring safety. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate will continue its monitoring and investigation to see that standards are maintained and, where necessary, improved.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money is being spent by his Department on improving safety within the railway system. [13786]

  Mr. Watts
  Safety expenditure by the railways is not identified separately as it is an integral part of expenditure which has other benefits, including maintenance and renewal.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent, prior to the completion of the franchising of passenger rail services on the great western, south-west and London, Tilbury and Southend lines, the Health and Safety Executive has been consulted on arrangements existing between the franchisees and Railtrack regarding the prevention of trespass on running lines; and what conclusions were reached by the Health and Safety Executive in each case. [13933]

  Mr. Watts
  The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994, which are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, require railway operators to demonstrate that they have effective arrangements in place to control health and safety risks and to co-operate with each other to facilitate compliance. Railway safety cases have to be accepted by the infrastructure controller, in this case Railtrack, or by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Railtrack's safety case has been accepted by the HSE, and Railtrack has in turn accepted the safety cases for the great western, south-west, and London, Tilbury and
  272
  Southend train operators. These safety cases set out in some detail the arrangements for co-operation and management of the interfaces between operators.

  Association of Train Operating Companies
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the powers, responsibilities, legal status and sources of income of the Association of Train Operating Companies. [13930]

  Mr. Watts
  The Association of Train Operating Companies—ATOC— is an unincorporated association open to all train operators holding passenger licences. Its principal functions, as set out in its constitution, are to facilitate the development and operation of commercial arrangements between passenger operators and to promote the use of the railway network, including, in particular, the making of journeys which involve more than one operator. ATOC's main objects and its ancillary functions are achieved through a number of schemes, essentially multi-party contracts between operators. ATOC's central secretariat administers these schemes, but is not itself a party to them. The secretariat's activities are financed through a membership fee levied on the association's members.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are currently employed by the Association of Train Operating Companies; and how many he expects will be employed in the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98. [13931]

  Mr. Watts
  Staffing levels in the Association of Train Operating Companies—ATOC—secretariat are determined by the association's members, who fund the secretariat's activities. ATOC currently employs 33 staff and expects to employ about 50 staff in 1996–97. It is too early to estimate the number of staff ATOC will employ in 1997–98.

  M3
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish statistics on the volume of traffic on the M3 between junctions 6 and 7, and the volume of traffic entering and leaving the M3 at those junctions for each year since 1980. [133777]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the volume of traffic on the M3 motorway between junctions 6 and 7 and the volume of traffic entering or leaving the M3 at those junctions, for each year since 1980.

  I regret that information in the form requested is not available. However, the annual average daily traffic flow (AADT) between junctions 6 and 7 on the M3 motorway for the three years 1993–95 was:

  1993: 70,100

  1994: 70,700

  1995: 76,100

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide full details of the timetable for the franchising of passenger rail services; and if he will make a statement. [13998]

  Mr. Watts
  Bidders for the Network SouthCentral, Gatwick Express, Midland Main Line and InterCity East Coast franchises were shortlisted on 16 January. Final tenders are required by 1 March. Invitations to tender for South Eastern were issued on 19 December and for Chiltern on 30 January. For both franchises, indicative bids are required by 22 March. The franchising director issued on 23 January a document inviting applications to qualify to receive invitations to tender for the Cardiff Railway Company and South Wales and West franchises; responses to this must be received by 26 February.

  The timetable for the franchising of passenger rail services is kept continually under review by the franchising director and the process for letting further franchises will be commenced by him as soon as practicable.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to visit the countryside on the route of the Newbury bypass in the current year. [12407]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the countryside on the route of the Newbury bypass.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what detailed studies on the effects of run-off from the Newbury bypass on the rivers Lambourn and Kennet have been undertaken and published; [12409]

  (2) what detailed studies on the effects of noise and air pollution from the Newbury bypass on Snelsmore common have been undertaken and published; [12408]

  (3) if he will list the sites of national archaeological interest along the route of the proposed Newbury bypass; what detailed studies of the impacts of the road on these sites have been published; and what opportunity there has been for public consultation on these impacts; [12406]

  (4) what protection is afforded to archaeological sites of national importance under planning policy guidance; how such protection has been taken into account in the consent procedure for the A34 Newbury bypass; and what opportunity there has been for the public to comment formally; [12405]

  (5) how many badger setts lie on the route of the proposed A34 Newbury bypass; and what steps have been taken to relocate them before clearance work starts. [12403]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 7 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the Newbury Bypass.

  The studies we have carried out show that there will be no effect on the rivers Kennet and Lambourne from run off from the Newbury Bypass. The run off from the bypass will discharge through silt traps
  274
  and oil interceptors to either deep soakaways or to balancing ponds. The balancing ponds use plants and reed beds as filters to improve further the quality of the water. These proposals have been agreed with the National Rivers Authority and will lead to an overall improvement in water quality, as less traffic will cross the rivers on the existing A34 where no such measures exist.

  The effects of noise from the bypass were assessed in accordance with the Manual for Environmental Appraisal and were published at the 1988 Public Inquiry, they did not specifically single out Snelsmore Common. No areas have been identified where air quality along the bypass will be a problem. The removal of congestion in Newbury together with other Government measures to reduce emissions from vehicles will lead to an overall improvement.

  There is only one site of national archaeological interest along the route of the Newbury Bypass, the Mesolithic site in the Lambourne valley. Field and desk-top studies have been undertaken along the route and are available. These studies together with proposals for archaeological rescue work have been discussed and agreed with English Heritage.

  Although there were no known sites of archaeological importance at the time of the 1988 Public Inquiry, it was always accepted that there may be sites and the Inspector took account of this in his report.

  Protection is afforded to archaeological sites of national importance under Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) No 16, a copy of which may be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Such protection has been taken fully into account in giving the go ahead for the A34 Newbury Bypass.

  Representation about archaeological sites were made at the 1988 Inquiry and were covered by the Inspector in his report.

  After carefully surveying the route of the bypass, 3 badger setts were found. Replacement badger setts were constructed and the badgers relocated under licence from English Nature before the existing setts were destroyed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were(a) the original estimated savings from the introduction of the incapacity benefit for the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 and (b) the updated estimates for each of these periods; and if he will make a statement. [12245]

  Mr. Burt
  The original estimates for savings from the introduction of incapacity benefit were published in the Financial Memorandum to the Incapacity for Work Bill. Information from the Financial Memorandum is reproduced in the table.

  Estimated saving (£ million)

  1995–69

  410

  1996–97

  1,185

  1997–98

  1,720

  A variety of factors will influence performance against these estimates including the decision to control the rate of processing of pre-April 1995 invalidity benefit cases to match operational performance. It is not yet possible reliably to estimate the overall effect on the original savings estimates.
  275
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many decisions to award incapacity benefit have been issued(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area since April 1995; [12234]

  (2) how many decisions to refuse incapacity benefit applications have been issued since April 1995 (a) nationally, (b) in the Greater Manchester area and (c) in the borough of Rochdale. [12335]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table.

  Allowed following reference to BAMS on the all-work test

  Disallowed following reference to BAMS on the all-work test1

  National

  302,048

  45,085

  Greater Manchester

  23,752

  3,523

  Rochdale

  670

  120

  1 Includes disallowances following failure to return the all work test questionnaire and failure to attend for medical examination.

  BAMS—Benefits Agency Medical Services.

  1. All information to end of November 1995.

  2. Data for greater Manchester covers the BA districts of: South Cheshire, Stockport, Tameside, Manchester South, Manchester Central, Salford, Sale/East Cheshire, Oldham, Manchester Trinity, Blackburn/Accrington, Bolton/Farnworth, Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale, West Pennine (including Rochdale office) and Wigan and Leigh.

  3. The data is provisional and reflects activity during a time when the take-on of cases has been carefully controlled to ensure that the flow of work does not exceed operational capacity. It is, therefore, too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the new procedures.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for incapacity benefit passed the all-work test and were deemed fit for employment in the most recent period for which he has figures. [13128]

  Mr. Burt: The information is in the table:

  Number

  Found incapable of work following reference to BAMS on the all-work test

  302,048

  Found capable of work following reference to BAMS on the all-work test1

  45,085

  1 Includes disallowances following failure to return the all-work test questionnaire and failure to attend for medical examination.

  1. All information to end of November 1995.

  2. The data is provisional and reflects activity during a time when the take-on of cases has been carefully controlled to ensure that the flow of work does not exceed operational capacity. It is, therefore, too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the new procedures.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average length of time taken to hear an appeal against the disallowance of incapacity benefit under the all-work test in the northern region in 1995. [13200]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 571, on child benefit, if, in the course of statutory consultation on the integration of one-parent benefit and child benefit, he will issue a draft timetable for the integration of those benefits. [13098]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is expected that the consultation process will be completed in early April. Regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the end of the consultation process. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force in April 1997.

  Office Equipment and Uniforms
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sums have been spent(a) by DSS offices and (b) by executive agencies on (i) uniforms for staff and (ii) furniture for offices in each region in each of the last five years; and if he will list those items valued over £5,000. [13093]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Staff uniforms

  Year (calendar)

  £

  1991

  n/a

  1992

  1,544,695

  1993

  1,092,464

  1994

  1,488,005

  1995

  1,120,623

  1. The figures are provisional and subject to change.

  2. The table shows the total amount spent on uniforms for staff by the Department and its executive agencies.

  Furniture

  Year (financial)

  £

  1990–91

  15,918,340

  1991–92

  1,795,241

  1992–93

  11,762,878

  1993–94

  13 034,386

  1994–95

  13,563,886

  1. The figures are provisional and subject to change.

  2. The table shows the total amount spent on furniture by the Department and its executive agencies.

  3. Information regarding individual items of furniture is available only at disproportionate cost.

  National Insurance (Contribution Holidays)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the estimates given in the Department of Social Security press release of 29 November 1994, on(a) the effect on public revenues of the proposed national insurance contribution holidays for people unemployed for two years or more and (b) the estimated number who will benefit from the scheme, giving the figures for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. [13403]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.
  277

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Estimated cost (£ million)1

  303

  50

  50

  Estimated number of new employees benefiting each year2

  130,000

  130,000

  130,000

  1. National insurance contribution income forgone.

  2. Estimates are based on a forecast of 2.1 million unemployed, but do not include the impact on the level of unemployment, because the response of employers and the size of any behavioural effects cannot be estimated with certainty.

  3. The first year cost is lower than a full year's cost because the national insurance holiday lasts for one year and applies to new cases flowing off unemployment. Thus in respect of people leaving unemployment in the latter half of the year, a full year's cost in the first year will not accrue.

  Official Documents (Braille)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision is made by his Department to provide official documents in braille and large text. [13445]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department and its agencies have a policy of making public information available in braille and large text and on audio cassette. When producing material for blind and partially sighted people, the recommended guidelines of the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Government's own document, "Accessible Information Meeting the Government Commitment", are followed.

  Facilities are available to produce one-off documents in Braille on request.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of the bottom 20 percent. of pensioner households as a percentage of average household incomes; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979. [13957]

  Mr. Heald
  Since 1979, the median income of the bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners has risen by nearly 20 per cent. For the population as a whole, median income rose by just over 25 per cent. More information is in the tables.

  Median household incomes of the bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners as a percentage of overall median income, 1979 and 1992–93 Table 1: Before housing costs— £ per week at March 1995 prices

  Median income of the bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners

  Median household income—all individuals

  Pensioner bottom quintile median as per cent. of: whole population median

  1979

  93

  178

  52 per cent.

  1992–93

  111

  224

  49 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The information in the tables is derived from the 1979 and 1992–93 households below average income datasets. 1992–93 is the latest date for which results are available.

  2. Estimates are of weekly household equivalised disposable income, for monetary amounts estimates are shown as equivalent monetary amounts for a couple with no children. Figures are given to the nearest whole £.

  3. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  4. Figures for 1992–93 are for two calendar years data combined.

  5. Figures are for the UK.
  278

  Table 2: After housing costs—£ per week at March 1995 prices

  Median income of the bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners

  Median household income—all individuals

  Pensioner bottom quintile median as per cent. of: whole population median

  1979

  80

  154

  52 per cent.

  1992–93

  95

  195

  49 per cent.

  1. The information in the tables is derived from the 1979 and 1992–93 households below average income datasets. 1992–93 is the latest date for which results are available.

  2. Estimates are of weekly household equivalised disposable income, for monetary amounts estimates are shown as equivalent monetary amounts for a couple with no children. Figures are given to the nearest whole £.

  3. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  4. Figures for 1992–93 are for two calendar years data combined.

  5. Figures are for the UK.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the tables given in the written answer on 30 November 1993,Official Report, columns 426–27 [13959]

  Mr. Heald
  The information on the numbers of single pensioners treated as having notional income from savings is in the table.

  Number of single pensioner recipients

  Amount of notional Income £

  Income support

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  1

  14,000

  17,000

  29,000

  2

  10,000

  13,000

  23,000

  3

  8,000

  11,000

  19,000

  4

  7,000

  11,000

  21,000

  5

  6,000

  10,000

  17,000

  6

  5,000

  9,000

  15,000

  7

  4,000

  7,000

  11,000

  8

  4,000

  7,000

  14,000

  9

  3,000

  6,000

  12,000

  10

  3,000

  7,000

  11,000

  11

  2,000

  4,000

  7,000

  12

  3,000

  5,000

  9,000

  13

  2,000

  5,000

  8,000

  14

  2,000

  4,000

  7,000

  15

  2,000

  3,000

  5,000

  16

  2,000

  4,000

  9,000

  17

  2,000

  2,000

  4,000

  18

  2,000

  3,000

  5,000

  19

  2,000

  3,000

  5,000

  20

  2,000

  2,000

  5,000

  All cases

  87,000

  133,000

  236,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Single pensioners are defined as people in receipt of income support and/or housing benefit and/or council tax benefit aged 60 or over who do not have a partner.

  3. There is a considerable overlap in the figures as most DpODle receive both housing benefit and council tax benefit. There is also some overlap with the income support recipients.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiry May 1994.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 percent. sample inquiry taken at the end of May 1994.
  279
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the total of state benefits paid to pensioners, including state earnings related pension and the basic state pension, expressed as a percentage of(a) gross domestic product and (b) the total personal incomes of the population as a whole in each year since 1979; [13960]

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Total benefit expenditure on the elderly (£ million)

  8,752

  10,138

  12,134

  14,357

  16,105

  17,456

  18,522

  20,241

  21,703

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  5.04

  4.86

  5.10

  5.50

  5.64

  5.63

  5.58

  5.55

  5.53

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  7.45

  7.12

  7.34

  7.99

  8.28

  8.32

  8.11

  8.15

  8.05

  Total HB/CTB expenditure for the elderly (£ million)

  510

  570

  747

  1,172

  1,478

  1,719

  1,927

  2,144

  2,324

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  0.29

  0.27

  0.31

  0.45

  0.52

  0.55

  0.58

  0.59

  0.59

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  0.43

  0.40

  0.45

  0.65

  0.76

  0.82

  0.84

  0.86

  0.86

  Total IS expenditure for the elderly (£ million)

  561

  624

  729

  924

  941

  985

  1,162

  1,302

  1,453

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  0.32

  0.30

  0.31

  0.35

  0.33

  0.32

  0.35

  0.36

  0.37

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  0.48

  0.44

  0.44

  0.51

  0.48

  0.47

  0.51

  0.52

  0.54

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total benefit expenditure on the elderly (£ million)

  22,873

  23,658

  25,715

  28,638

  31,613

  34,544

  36,978

  37,926

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  5.26

  4.89

  4.89

  5.14

  5.44

  5.71

  5.79

  5.59

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  7.82

  7.25

  7.12

  7.48

  7.66

  7.80

  8.02

  7.93

  Total HB/CTB expenditure for the elderly (£ million)

  2,411

  2,412

  2,813

  3,473

  3,168

  3,932

  4,688

  5,099

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  0.55

  0.50

  0.54

  0.62

  0.55

  0.65

  0.73

  0.75

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  0.82

  0.74

  0.78

  0.91

  0.77

  0.89

  1.02

  1.07

  Total IS expenditure for the elderly (£ million)

  1,570

  1,847

  2,050

  2,301

  2,725

  3,728

  3,939

  3,866

  Expressed as a percentage of GDP

  0.36

  0.38

  0.39

  0.41

  0.47

  0.62

  0.62

  0.57

  Expressed as a percentage of PDI

  0.54

  0.57

  0.57

  0.60

  0.66

  0.84

  0.85

  0.81

  The Elderly are men and women aged 60 and over.

  GDP = Gross domestic product. PDI = Personal disposable income.

  IS = Income support (and equivalent for earlier years).

  HB/CTB = Housing benefit/council tax benefit and equivalent for earlier years.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost in the first year of introducing age-related rebates to appropriate personal pensions as proposed in his current consultation document; and what would be the cost if the proposed levels were raised by(a) 0.25 per cent., (b) 0.5 per cent., (c) 0.75 per cent., (d) 1 per cent., (e) 1.25 percent., (f) 1.5 per cent., (g) 1.75 per cent. and (h) 2 per cent. of allowable earnings. [13958]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Additional rebate (per cent. upper band earnings)

  Total cost 1997–98 (£ million)

  Cost above 1997–98 baseline (£ million)

  Baseline

  1,885

  n/a

  0.25

  1,970

  85

  0.50

  2,045

  160

  0.75

  2,125

  240

  280
  (2) if he will estimate the total of income support, housing benefit and council tax, or equivalent benefits applicable at the time paid to pensioners expressed as a percentage of (a) gross domestic product and (b) the total personal incomes of the population as a whole in each year since 1979. [1396]

  Mr. Heald: The information is in the tables.

  Additional rebate (per cent. upper band earnings)

  Total cost 1997–98 (£ million)

  Cost above 1997–98 baseline (£ million)

  1.00

  2,200

  315

  1.25

  2,275

  390

  1.50

  2,350

  465

  1.75

  2,430

  545

  2.00

  2,505

  620

  1. The figures are in respect of 1997–98 accruals. Costs would not arise until 1998–99 because rebates for appropriate personal pensions (APPs) are paid in arrears. The figures have been calculated in 1994–95 price terms.

  2. The "baseline" figures reflect the proposed age-related rebates for APPs set out in the Government Actuary's consultative note on contracting-out terms issued in August 1995.

  3. The costings assume the same age and earnings distribution and numbers of individuals in APPs under each of the proposed set of rebate levels shown.

  Pensions Information Line
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions and guidance has been issued to those giving advice on the "pensions info-line" about the information and advice to be given to callers. [13415]

  Mr. Heald
  All those giving advice on the "pensions info-line" follow a carefully prepared script on computer that has been devised to cater for different types of inquiry. Help screens with prescribed wording are also available on the computers, should the need arise—for example, to explain the content of a leaflet or to give out the telephone number of a trade association.
  282
  All operators are briefed by departmental staff on a regular basis about new or revised literature, as well as about any forthcoming press or publicity activity which might result in increased numbers of calls on particular pensions issues.

  Operators are not allowed to deal with calls to the info-line until they have undergone training and can demonstrate to the supervisor's satisfaction a sound knowledge of the script and of DSS pensions literature.

  In accordance with the Financial Services Act, operators do not give financial advice to callers.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
The Reverend Canon Peter Pilkington, having been created Baron Pilkington of Oxenford, of West Dowlish in the County of Somerset, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the Lord Runcie.
Lord Harris of Peckham
Sir Philip Charles Harris, Knight, having been created Baron Harris of Peckham, of Peckham in the London Borough of Southwark, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blatch and the Baroness Perry of Southwark.

Lloyd's of London
2.56 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any prosecutions for fraud are contemplated of Names' syndicate managers and underwriters at Lloyd's of London insurance market, as a result of the cumulative and anticipated losses of over £11,000 million of recent years and, if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, allegations relating to one group of syndicates were recently investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and resulted in a decision in April 1994 that no proceedings were justified. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office is currently considering whether certain other matters referred to him warrant investigation.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that the disaster at Lloyd's represents the single biggest enforced transfer of personal wealth this century? It was bigger than the party to the right of me has ever managed to achieve in 70 years. Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that one of the problems of criminality arises in that it is the outside Names of Lloyds who have made all the losses in principle? Rather than spending £40 million chasing the ghost of Robert Maxwell, would it not be better to spend that money investigating Lloyd's properly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware, as the whole House will be, of the extent of the losses that a large number of people have suffered in recent years. The task of the Serious Fraud Office is to
232
investigate and determine whether there is criminality. If certain tests are met then its task is to ensure that prosecutions are brought. I have indicated the attitude that the office has struck over that.
Where I do not agree with the noble Lord is that there should be yet a further investigation for a review of Lloyd's. There have been extensive reviews in the past and a number of lengthy judgments in the courts. While there are proposals of which the noble Lord will be aware —that is, the reconstruction and renewal plan —it seems to the Government that we should see the outcome of the changes that have been proposed before instituting any further review.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend agree that the investigation of the Walker Committee, of which I was a member, looked into Lloyd's, particularly the LMX spiral? The committee's recommendations were unanimously accepted by Lloyd's Council. The remedies suggested by that committee have been implemented. Surely there is no reason that there should be another in-depth investigation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords, significant changes have already been made. I repeat what we said in our reply to the Treasury Select Committee. We agree that the regulatory framework should be reviewed at some time in the light of the committee's findings, but we would not consider this time to be appropriate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as an outsider in this wheeling and dealing, I find it all sounds a little complacent. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that £11 billion —assuming that that figure is in the right ballpark —can simply disappear and one shrugs it off and leaves it? Is there no misbehaviour involved? Is that the Government's view or is it like a will-o'-the-wisp and no one can find it? As an outsider, I find it amazing, because £11 billion is not tuppence ha'penny. Is there no interest in what happened to the money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I recognise that there have been substantial losses. I do not believe that I offered any agreement to the figure suggested to me. However, we must be clear that the Serious Fraud Office is concerned to determine whether there has been any criminality in those who acted within Lloyd's. Similarly, a number of large claims have been made which would indicate that there has been breach of contract, negligence and various other errors which have been addressed in civil law. Most recently, a very large claim was brought before the English courts. I would rather not comment on it because I understand that it will possibly be subject to an appeal.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as a victim of Lloyd's with open syndicates, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he is satisfied that Lloyd's has been wholly frank with the DTI as to the assets it has to cover its solvency? Over the past two years, Lloyd's has asked a large number of the many thousands of resigned Names to provide very large additional sums —in many cases individually over £100.000 —to augment their

233
deposits to cover their solvency. In many cases, those sums have not been paid —I am not talking about payment of called losses but about the augmentation of deposits at Lloyd's —and no attempt has been made to collect them. Is my noble friend entirely satisfied that Lloyd's is solvent?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, some of the detail that my noble friend provides is new to me. However, the documentation required by the Insurance Companies Act demonstrating that Lloyd's met the solvency requirements for the year ending December 1994 were received last summer. They indicate that at that time Lloyd's met the solvency requirements. The returns for the year ending 1995 are, however, not due until the summer and therefore I cannot offer a complete answer with regard to the position last year. I have no reason to believe one way or another that the adequacy of the solvency requirements will not be met.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that prosecutions for fraud have taken place in virtually every other field of financial services, can the Government give the House some explanation as to why syndicate managers and underwriters at Lloyd's are not subject to prosecution for fraud? Has it to do with the people involved, the complexities of the arrangements, or lack of ability on the part of the prosecutors?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Serious Fraud Office suffers the accusation from time to time that it prosecutes people where there are no criminal charges. By a rather curious turnabout it now seems that it is accused of not prosecuting when it should.
The Serious Fraud Office will prosecute on the basis of a sound case in criminal law. In one case in which it prosecuted the defendants were not convicted. There is another prosecution outstanding, but those charged are, I regret to say, at present beyond the reach of our extradition arrangements.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, in view of the fact that a recent court judgment found that the deputy chairman of Lloyd's had deliberately concealed information from his syndicate Names, are the Government aware that many people, including myself, are very anxious to see some form of inquiry launched into the entire Lloyd's market?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that Lloyd's has already announced that it is considering whether any disciplinary action should be taken in the light of the judgment to which I referred some moments ago. The Department of Trade and Industry is also scrutinising the self-same judgment to determine whether there are any issues that need to be considered under the Insurance Companies Act. However, I understand that an appeal is pending and therefore I repeat that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Public Libraries: Local Authority Obligations
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether all local authorities are fulfilling their statutory bookfund obligations to public libraries under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and what action they are taking in respect of those which are not.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act refers to the "keeping of adequate stocks". On 31st March 1994, English public libraries held 105 million books; that is, 2.2 books for every person in the country.
During the current financial year officials have, however, looked carefully at a number of authorities to ensure that their service complies with the legislation. No intervention by the Secretary of State has been necessary, but the Department of National Heritage will continue to monitor changes in service provision.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the House will be glad to receive that assurance as we have reason to have pride in the public library service of our country. However, is the Minister aware that if present tendencies continue —namely, a gradual decline in local government support for libraries, and gross variation between one authority and another —we shall have less cause for pride? Is it not time for the department to take a broad look at the situation to see precisely what is happening?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the library service is one of the most popular, indeed loved, services in the entire country. The Government take their statutory responsibilities towards public libraries very seriously. We shall continue to monitor the quality of the service through the professional library advisers in the Department of National Heritage, and to draw on the expertise and experience of the advisory council on libraries.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister really think that 2.2 hooks per person is adequate?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is too much for some people!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem in the library service derives from the long-standing squeeze on local authority expenditure that has led to cuts in book purchasing in virtually every authority? Is she aware that last year seven major authorities cut library spending by over 20 percent., and a dozen are forecast to cut branches in the coming year? Will the Minister help the House by stating how the Secretary of State defines the comprehensive service that is statutorily required? As seven authorities were reported to the department for breaching that comprehensive service, especially Somerset, will she amplify the reply she began and tell the House the

235
Secretary of State's decision in regard to those authorities that are in breach of a comprehensive service, however defined?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a heck of a long question, and may need a heck of a long answer. Ministers have to ensure that authorities meet their statutory obligations. They have full powers to intervene where they have reason to believe that library authorities are failing to meet those duties. Those powers have never been used. There are wide disparities in levels of book provision per person across the country. Some authorities spend less than £1 and others nearly £6. While some book funds have decreased over a 10-year period, there are examples of substantial increases. So the pattern is spread over a very wide area. I could continue but I think I should bore the House.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, long questions give the Minister a good chance to find the page!
I mentioned Somerset, the subject of a specific reference to the Secretary of State for failure to provide the service required. Is the Minister able to tell the House the Secretary of State's conclusion in that specific case?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, discussions between the Department of National Heritage and Somerset County Council are continuing. One of the subjects is next year's bookfund but as the conversations are continuing, I have no information to give the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as Somerset has been mentioned, does my noble friend recall that Somerset is an authority under Liberal Democrat control? It has chosen to spend in excess of £3 million on a new library in Taunton which opened only last month. Is it any wonder that there is no money left to spend on books?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, the conversations are continuing. I must tell my noble friend, however, that building a new library involves capital expenditure which does not come out of the same purse as books. Books come out of current expenditure.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, having regard to the general decline over the whole period, despite bright spots here and there, does the noble Baroness agree that it is high time for her right honourable friend to take a general look at the situation from the department itself? Will she make that recommendation to him? May we hope that some general government action on a declining situation will be taken so that it can be reversed and we can return again to what we should have?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, apart from the fact that the noble Lord got the Secretary of State's sex wrong, the Secretary of State has no powers to interfere in the day-to-day management of the public library service.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether mobile libraries are included and will not be cut? Will she accept that they are very popular with the elderly and mothers with small children?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree that they are very popular and it is up to local authorities.

Mobile Telephones: Use in Public Places
3.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the formulation of a code of conduct for the use of mobile telephones in public places.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, while that is an intriguing suggestion, the Government doubt how efficaciously manners can be regulated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. Is he aware that several such telephones used in a restricted place can become a serious public nuisance? They may be necessary in the modern, competitive business world but should not special areas be designated for their use —for example, on trains, where passengers suffer unduly and especially when voices arc raised to a shout when passing through tunnels?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that the suggestion made by my noble friend meets with considerable approval from many noble Lords. Many of us have suffered the intolerable situation on trains and elsewhere of having to listen to extremely boring ends of conversations. It would be polite for people not to engage in such phonecalls at maximum pitch and it might be desirable if trains, restaurants and other places introduced some arrangements of their own. I am certainly aware of one airline which, within its lounge, provides a particular area in which people can use their mobile phones. I have no doubt that if that suggestion were followed by others, it would meet with widespread approval.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister consider motorways to be a public place in the context of this Question? On two separate occasions I have had the unfortunate experience of following down the motorway someone who was driving at 60 miles an hour in the centre lane while making telephone calls, causing several hundred cars to pull out into the fast lane to try to overtake, rather than undercut in the empty inner lane. Can the Minister find some way of approaching that problem?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is not a specific offence of using a mobile phone while driving a motor vehicle. But there are circumstances in which use of a mobile phone might result in prosecution.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that mobile telephones are not for purposes of communication but to enhance the prestige of those who carry them and make it apparent that they are upwardly mobile? Would Her Majesty's Government care to consider offering such people some kind of decoration which they could wear to

237
indicate that they are qualified yuppies, without their having to bore the rest of the public with their conversations, alleged or imaginary?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend strikes a clear chord with many of your Lordships. He makes an intriguing suggestion but, again, I doubt whether it is a matter that the Government could hope to regulate. It might disturb him to know that there are around 5.5 million people in the country now with mobile telephones. It would be a horrible situation if they were all to use them in public places at the same time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, regarding the use of mobile phones on trains and the nuisance caused to passengers, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be possible, as has already been suggested, to have a separate carriage for mobile phone users? Perhaps, at the same time, those responsible could be persuaded to reintroduce smoking compartments where they could very well be?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope that the soon to be successful operators of the privatised railways will take on board the noble Lord's suggestion, coming, as it does, from such an eminent source.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware how glad I am to hear that the Government will not become involved in teaching manners to people with mobile phones or with anything else? My heart sank when I first heard the Question. What is there about mobile phones that so upsets people? Perfectly normal people seem to go absolutely crackers at the mere mention of a mobile phone. I hasten to add that I do not have one. If there is a problem, could not separate places be created, approximately one yard square, in which people could use their mobile phones? Such places used to he called phone-boxes.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I feel that it would be desirable if in trains, restaurants and other public places special areas were to be set aside. But I am not sure that it is a matter that the Government should seek to regulate. I am surprised that the noble Lord is unique in not finding overhearing phonecalls on mobiles extremely irritating, not only because they are usually conducted at an extraordinary volume but also because the conversations engaged in are extremely tedious.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to mention that my problem is that I find most of the conversations that I overhear extremely irritating and tedious? So far as I am concerned there is nothing unique about the mobile phone.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not agree. I can think of remarks overheard on the top deck of a bus which could be brilliant opening lines for a novel. I have not heard anything on a mobile phone that would have prompted my imagination.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the practice is not confined to
238
yuppies? One complaint that has come to me was about a prominent member of the Shadow Cabinet who telephoned on a train almost continuously between London and Edinburgh. The only light relief for the passengers, who were forced to overhear, came from his loud suggestions as to what the Labour Party should do about Arthur Scargill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not feel that the noble Lord should boast of his good fortune in overhearing an interesting conversation. It certainly does not square with the general experience of the rest of us.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that particular problem is likely to be of importance only until the next General Election? After that, the members of the Shadow Cabinet will be in ministerial cars.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am intrigued to hear that we have at long last a solemn manifesto commitment that there will be no use of the railways by those who aspire to be members of the next government.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for some people a mobile phone is an essential method of communication and is highly desirable? Any time that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, wants to borrow a mobile telephone, he has only to ask.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as regards the matter of manners, which was raised by the original Question, I believe that there are issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The mobile phone is of great assistance to all manner of people. I know that a number of organisations have particularly encouraged women travelling alone on motorways to carry a mobile phone. One can think of many other instances in which the mobile phone is indeed of significant advantage.

The Railways: Waiting Rooms
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend the Passenger's Charter to guarantee adequate waiting room accommodation for railway passengers on every manned railway station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, it is for passenger service operators to decide what to include in their Passenger's Charter. But under their franchise agreements operators will be contractually required to provide weather-proof waiting accommodation or other adequate shelter.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: But is the Minister saying that the Government are not prepared to include in the Passenger's Charter the right of rail passengers to have the comfort and necessary shelter of a railway waiting room? Is he not aware that there are rumours of certain of the bidders for railway franchises declaring that they will close down all the waiting rooms on a certain line? Therefore, is it not clear that if, as the Government claim,

239
the privatised rail companies are not to be allowed to increase prices above inflation or to cut services, the only way that they can provide a dividend for their shareholders is by shedding jobs, and that means shedding some of the comforts which have to be manned on these stations?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the way that the new operators will be able to increase their businesses is by attracting more people onto the railways. We believe that by providing better facilities, not only on the trains but also at the stations, they will succeed in attracting more people onto the railways. It is in their very commercial interest to do so. However, the new arrangements do provide more protection under the franchise agreement than exists at the moment for British Rail.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in order to be politically correct, would it not be right to refer to these railway stations as being personed rather than manned?
Viscount Goschen: Quite possibly, my Lords, but I do not believe it is an issue which Her Majesty's Government have given detailed examination.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the inclement weather of yesterday hundreds of railway passengers were marooned on stations in terrible conditions and that only the minimum of waiting accommodation was available and in some cases none at all? Is it not about time that the Government turned their attention to this issue? Is he aware that Stockport station outside Manchester has seen little, if any, improvement over a great number of years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is looking forward, as I am, to the wholesale privatisation of the railways. This is the biggest structural change we have seen in the railways. We believe that great benefit will come to passengers, at stations as well as on the track.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his hallucinations about the success of privatisation do not coincide very well with the events of the past couple of days, with two major allegations of fraud involving franchisees? Will he reply to my noble friend Lady Castle, who said that there was a case where, despite what the noble Viscount said, a franchisee has either said that he does not intend to provide waiting accommodation or has already taken action in that regard?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have explained that under the franchise agreements there are requirements and new protections which do not exist at the moment that will come to bear under the franchising process. If the House really wants to know about franchising it just has to look at what has happened with the two franchises that have been successfully let. We have now seen real commitments to increasing the provision of services on stations. Indeed, one of the franchisees has included the issue of stations in its agreement with the franchising director.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as the Minister has chosen not to reply to the point that I made which was
240
raised by my noble friend Lady Castle, will he comment on this point? Is it right that a franchisee has already indicated that waiting accommodation is to be shut down? If that is right, what action is to be taken in relation to the contractual arrangements that have been made with that franchisee?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has clearly not been listening. I have answered the noble Baroness in detail and I have answered the noble Lord in detail. The franchise agreement specifies requirements upon the operator to whom the franchise is let. There is provision in the detail of the Act and the franchising director is bound to take that up with the operator. That adequately covers this point. As franchises come to be let, the franchising director has to be satisfied that these requirements are met. These are new provisions. They did not exist under British Rail. We shall therefore see better stations. One has only to look at what has happened with the two new franchises that have been let, with the commitments to capital investment in the stations, to see what will happen under privatisation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government clarify something for me? Travelling on the railway one sees stations with signs on them saying "This station is owned by Railtrack". My understanding is that Railtrack encompasses all the infrastructure of the railway while the operators arc to run the trains on the tracks. From the Minister's answers, it seems that that is not a correct understanding. Can the Minister explain where the dividing line comes? Does Railtrack, the provider of the infrastructure, have to provide the platforms or the stations? What is the operator's responsibility and what is Railtrack' s responsibility?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Railtrack owns the stations. They are leased to the operators.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Turner of Camden and the Lord Judd set down for this day shall each be limited to 2½ hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about today's debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. In the first debate, other than the mover, Front-Bench spokesmen and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to 11 minutes and in the second debate eight minutes. I should remind your

241
Lordships that, if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. I might also remind your Lordships that, when the digital clock shows 11 minutes, the full 11 minutes have elapsed and the speaker is already trespassing on the time of others.

Financial Services: Employment
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the changing patterns of employment in the financial services industries, with consequent lack of security, and the wider social effects of this development; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my Motion seeks to draw attention to the changing patterns of employment in the financial services sector and the social consequences of such changes.
In the 1980s we became used, wrongly in my opinion, to redundancies occurring in manufacturing industry. Certain areas of the country which had previously been dominated by heavy engineering and manufacturing became devastated as factory after factory reduced the labour force or sometimes closed altogether. Many parts of the country still bear the marks of that experience, with long-term unemployment affecting in particular the male population.
There was a view at the time that the service sector, particularly financial services, would be able to take up the slack, so to speak, in the employment market, that jobs could or would be found for people displaced by the decline of our manufacturing base. For a short time, towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of this decade, it really seemed that this might be so. However, that has not happened.
Very severe employment problems are now arising in financial services. Of course, everywhere nowadays we hear references to "flexible working". To listen to some people, notably those speaking for some employers and also sometimes government spokespersons, this seems to be a wholly beneficial development. It is a way, so they say, of making the best use of resources, something of benefit to both employers and employees in an increasingly competitive environment. To others, those mostly concerned with employees —unions and organisations concerned with social and personnel questions —it can signify something very different. They watch with horror and concern what they see as an increasing fragmentation of the labour market, bringing with it a growing sense of insecurity.
In the financial services sector, that involves people who hitherto have felt reasonably secure in their employment. Those changes have come about relatively quickly. In addition, they have been due to the impact of technology and increasing globalisation of world markets. But there is also no doubt that they have been enormously stimulated and encouraged by government policy over the past decade or so.
Governments elected after the last war, whether they were Labour or Conservative, had a strong commitment to policies designed to ensure full employment, at least as an objective. That was because that particular generation of politicians and electorate had very powerful memories of the slump years immediately preceding the war. Those were the years of mass unemployment, hunger marches and the kind of social conditions described by George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier.
For 30 years following the war unemployment was not a problem. If someone lost one job it was possible for them to obtain another quite quickly. A Labour administration introduced the Redundancy Payments Act. The thinking behind that was that it would meet needs for a short period pending the obtaining of other employment. It was unthinkable that a middle-aged man with experience and qualifications might be facing a future with no work at all. We even had a brief period when we had earnings-related unemployment pay —again introduced by a Labour government, but ended in the early years of Mrs. Thatcher's first administration. That was based on the assumption that periods of unemployment would be short-lived and be succeeded by full-time, continuous employment.
I need hardly say that all that has changed. According to recent figures from the former Department of Employment, 9.7 million people —38 per cent. of all UK workers —are working part time, in temporary employment, are self-employed (somewhat insecurely in many cases) or on government training schemes. That is an increase of 1.25 million since 1986. The proportion of men who are part of the flexible workforce has risen from 18 per cent. in 1981 to 27 percent., whereas among women it has remained relatively stable.
According to the Labour Force Survey, the main reason for working part time is that the employees concerned do not want to work full time. That is surely the situation for many women with domestic and childcare commitments. But a significant number of men employed part time said that they would prefer full-time work, but could not find it. There is thus a feeling among many employees that part-time work is a transient experience and that when the opportunity arises they will go for the traditional type of employment —full time, secure and with employment benefit packages like pension provision.
Those changes are having a marked effect upon the financial services sector —an important sector of the economy, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, both as a contributor to the UK's economic performance and as a major employer of labour. The importance of London, for example, as a world provider of financial services cannot be too heavily emphasised. But many of the large institutions have redeployed outside of the City in the past decade, so employment in that sector is not just a matter for London and the South East. The industry employs nearly 1 million people; it provides 18 per cent. of gross domestic product and insurance companies and pension funds own over 50 per cent. of UK companies.
There is no doubt that some employers in the sector welcome the changes that have taken place, which arc often seen as irreversible. We shall never go hack, we are told, to the days of a job for life. But there are clearly some negative effects, even for employers, whatever short-term benefits they may perceive. There is the loyalty factor. Many long-established companies and institutions like banks have hitherto relied heavily on loyalty which comes from a commitment on the employer's side to providing security and good conditions of work and to which employees have in the past responded by their own commitment to the company or institution. In the past, it has not been unusual, for example, for several generations of the same family to work for the same company or institution. In addition to work, much of the employee's social life was bound up with the company. Many employees met their marriage partners at work and some of the larger companies have always provided sports and social clubs for employees, all of which had the effect of binding employees closer to the company.
An employee starting work with such an institution may well expect, subject to reasonable performance, to make a career involving gradual progression and though the pay was, generally speaking, not wonderful except at senior levels, there would be an assisted mortgage scheme and a non-contributory pension. In return, the employee was expected to commit himself or herself to the company and many were happy to do so.
A great deal of that loyalty can no longer he counted upon, particularly in situations where there has been what is euphemistically called "downsizing" —a polite way of describing redundancies, increasingly common at middle-management level, and where the replacements, if appointed, are given short-term contracts rather than contracts of the more traditional kind. Those remaining after such an exercise themselves suffer a sense of deep insecurity. They may find themselves having to work much harder or at a faster pace in order to make up for the staff who leave. As a result there has been increasing stress among senior members of staff. Some firms are undertaking stress counselling in order to deal with that recently identified problem. All that has had a spin-off into society generally.
The people working in the industries identified in the Motion are, in the main, from families and backgrounds which are often deeply conservative in both the social and political use of that term. They have been used to and, indeed, highly value a sense of stability in their lives. When they become unemployed it is a deeply shaming experience. If they remain in employment after downsizing, they experience deep feelings of stress and alienation. Certainly there will be no return of the feel-good factor until a sense of stability returns to their lives.
We have only recently begun to realise just how much of our social fabric and the institutions which keep it going have depended upon the notion that the majority of the population will always have continuous, secure employment. The whole concept of the present Government's property-owning democracy is based upon the notion that the householder will be able to take
244
out a mortgage and continue to make repayments over a long period. Obviously he or she cannot do that if employment is temporary, short term or liable to be terminated. The Government are bent upon encouraging people to take out private insurance to cover risks which have hitherto been regarded as provided by the state welfare system. But private insurance is not always available, unless the individual seeking it can demonstrate some degree of financial stability.
There has been a dramatic decline in life insurance policies sold recently. There has been a marked growth across the spectrum of forms of work that arc not tenured —in other words, the employee does not hold the job long enough to qualify for forms of protection such as the right to employment security because he or she does not spend two years in continuous employment. Seventy per cent. of new jobs are for 16 hours a week or less. Job vacancies in the jobcentres are now largely for temporary or part-time work, according to January figures from the employment services.
It has been prophesied that by the year 2000, unless things change, tenured employment of the traditional kind will be a minority form of employment. A letter I received from one of the unions catering for hank employees stated,
"The finance sector is going through the equivalent of the industrial revolution, only much more quickly. Job security is a thing of the past; temporary and agency staff very much characterise the present. We are deeply concerned and anything you can do to highlight this situation would be greatly appreciated".
And, of course, there are continuing redundancies. Yesterday Scottish Widows announced 600 redundancies in Scotland, and that all adds to the general sense of insecurity.
The question is: what should be done about those developments? The destabilising effect upon society generally is now widely recognised. Is this fragmentation of employment —showing up starkly in the financial services industry, but already applying in other areas and also a feature of other industries —inevitable? How shall we cope with it?
First, no one on this side of the House believes that there are easy solutions. The new technologies exist and will continue to develop. Indeed, we should seek to use them to the benefit of consumers generally. We cannot turn the clock back 20 or 30 years. We have to find a way of coping with such developments without producing a society in which, as one economist put it, 30 per cent. of the population is unemployed or unemployable; 30 per cent. is in insecure or temporary employment and 40 per cent. in continuous, high-skilled "core" employment. That is the 30:30:40 scenario. Clearly such a development would be socially divisive and the minority in secure employment may find themselves feeling insecure in other ways.
Training obviously plays a major part in getting people back into core employment. I shall not deal with that in detail in my contribution as some of my colleagues may wish to do so. But clearly a great deal more needs to he done to improve educational and skill levels. However, training by itself may not solve the

245
problems. The growth of part-time work in the service sector where employers are often seeking female staff —and not paying them very well where they can get away with it —together with widespread age discrimination, which does take place, can mean that well-qualified older male workers find employment prospects increasingly poor. Clearly much more needs to be done to improve pay and conditions for part-time workers. European directives are pushing us in the direction of ensuring that terms and conditions of employment are, pro rata, the same as those for full-time employees doing the same work.
However, I believe that there is a case for re-examining whether the new flexibility is in the long run to the total advantage of employers. It tends to undermine feelings of self-worth and esteem among workforces since no one likes to feel that he or she is expendable. There are the negative social effects to which I have referred. In financial services, in particular, the customer likes to feel that the institution with which he or she is dealing does have some stability and this is undermined if the employees with whom they deal are constantly changing as they come to the end of short-term contracts. The senior officials of a major bank recently said to me that this was beginning to be recognised.
I also believe that it should be possible to construct alternative policies which would arrest the development of a society in which only a minority has security and the remainder has to cope with varying degrees of disadvantage and insecurity. But that will mean turning away from the philosophies and the policies which have dominated government thinking since 1979. It means adopting a positive attitude aimed at employment creation and doing this in conjunction with our partners in Europe, based upon a philosophy that acknowledges social concerns and is not purely market oriented.
When the Government come to reply, I hope that the Minister will not trot out the tired old mantra about the social chapter. He knows as well as I do that it is simply a set of general principles and that the only directive that has emerged from it has been in relation to works councils, which although it does not bind the UK, is nevertheless being operated on a voluntary basis by a number of British firms. Neither is there the slightest evidence that a minimum wage would prevent job creation. Japanese companies investing and manufacturing here have already indicated that they have no difficulty with it.
We shall not deal with the problems to which I have referred, and which in truth are part of the general problem of employment towards the end of this century, by attempting to reduce the living standards and expectations of a large part of the population. I await with interest the Minister's response. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to debate
246
this subject. I must compliment her on the amount that she managed to squeeze into her 15 minutes, which she did most elegantly.
I should begin by declaring an interest as a director of a bank, but it is only rather peripheral to today's subject under discussion because the bank concerned has most of its employees in Asia and Africa and not in this country. But it has given me a considerable insight into what has been happening in the financial sector in this country in recent years. There is no doubt that this sector has been a great success. It is a matter of national pride that the City of London occupies such an important role in European and global financial matters. Although I do not have up-to-date figures available, I believe that the percentage of GDP which the noble Baroness quoted —approaching 20 per cent. from financial services —is very much higher than the percentage of the working population in that sector. Therefore, it is a very vital one.
What slightly worried me about what the noble Baroness said was that much of it appeared to be a statement of regret for the passing of an old order. I share that feeling of regret in many respects. We do not want to see people facing insecurity of employment, and difficulty in obtaining employment, which they can reasonably expect will continue for many years. But the difficulty that poses is that unless our financial sector responds to developments internationally and accepts the implications of technological revolution —for it is no less than a revolution —we shall lose competitiveness and our financial sector, which has managed to obtain so much international business to the great advantage of this country's economy, would lose out on its relative position.
If one just considers some of the developments which have taken place, such as ATMs, telephone banking, Internet, video conferencing and that kind of thing, they are bound to disrupt working arrangements which have seemed for generations to be settled. However uncomfortable we may find these developments, we have to accept that there is a degree of inevitability about them and try to find the right kind of responses. Those responses will come partly from the companies themselves; from the attitudes of employees and would-be employees. Also, there will be an impact on our education and training systems because the kind of working life that people will be facing in the financial sector, and many others, over the next generation, will be profoundly different from those which faced us a generation ago. It is not comfortable, but we need to respond to it.
Unfortunately, the pace of change is, if anything, accelerating. Ten years ago I had the task of putting together the Building Societies Act 1986. At that time I remember discussions in the Treasury as to whether it was possible to construct an Act which was likely to last for 10 years in view of the pace of change in the market place. It is exactly 10 years now since that Act was introduced and I think it did serve well. It is fairly remarkable that it has managed to last that long. I am not at all surprised that new legislation is now in the offing because it is certainly needed in view of the changes which have come about.

247
There has been a structural change. As well as within individual companies, the activities of building societies and banks have moved closer together. The same is true of insurance and investment. Foreign companies, German banks and many others, have been buying into the City, and the internationalising of our financial markets has proceeded apace.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that that happened earlier in the industrial sector, and that is right. Prior to that it happened in the agricultural sector. The difference about the financial sector is that it is so much more geographically concentrated. It is not, as she said, by any means entirely confined to the City of London or indeed only to the major centres because of the movement out of town to other locations. Nevertheless, it is very concentrated. It poses very significant problems both for employees and employers in managing this process of change.
I shall not take up the defensive political points which the noble Baroness made about minimum wages, the social chapter and so on, but it would be helpful if her party could be a little more precise about what kind of employment ideas it believes are appropriate to this fast-changing situation. My own view is that we need to maintain and improve our competitiveness and get our education and training more closely aligned with the needs of employment —not just the old-fashioned idea of the needs of employment, but employment in the new forms which it is beginning to take.
There is a requirement for a different type of approach. Many of the more routine tasks of a clerical nature, particularly in record-keeping, have been taken over by computers and so on. That is at the heart of the problem of the financial sector. In my view, although the noble Baroness expressed a longing for the old days when public policy could be described as full employment, if we were to allow that to be interpreted nowadays as a wish to sustain the status quo, with the inevitable consequences of over-manning, we would be deluding ourselves. I am certainly not accusing the noble Baroness of that, but when one considers such matters after a period of such rapid change there is a temptation to feel that there must be some brakes that could be applied to slow down the whole process. However, I rather doubt that.
In addition to technology and competition, I should like to mention regulation. I am a member of the Securities and Investments Board, a public body which comes in for a fair amount of public comment, not always of a flattering nature. The SIB and associated bodies have tried to do the serious job of ensuring that the financial markets are properly organised and that those who are in those markets behave correctly. I think that there is now possibly a danger of too much regulation rather than too little. If the regulations become too much of a straitjacket, too cumbersome and too mechanical, that can suppress a lot of beneficial business activity.
That brings me to the point made by the noble Baroness about life assurance. Some terrible things were done a few years ago when many pensions and life policies were mis-sold, and those who were responsible
248
need to make amends. However, if the consequence of the regime and processes which arc applied are such that they dissuade many in the population not to make the kind of savings which are in their own interests, the pendulum may have swung a little too far.
Whenever there has been such a fundamental change, the whole process of redundancy becomes rather stark for groups of people. I agree with the noble Baroness that words such as "down-sizing" and "outplacement" are euphemisms for what is a very unhappy experience for those individuals who suffer them. However, I do not believe that the noble Baroness should he too hard on those employers who have tried to introduce training and new retraining schemes and to provide more flexibility in their employment. That is part of the response which employers need to make.
I know that one of the major high street banks has been introducing work experience for 16 to 18 year-olds to give them some taste, before they finish their formal education, of what today's world of work is likely to require from them. That is beneficial, especially as I understand that it can be done in conjunction with the local education authority and the schools.
We shall have to adopt such new approaches if we are to face up to the fact that the changes in the financial sector are not likely to be reversed. They will probably continue and may even accelerate. The financial sector has been a very important part of this country's economy for many years. I hope that it can retain that leadership internationally. I believe that it can and that it will do so if it remains competitive even if that brings in its train difficult decisions for employers and employees.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the major financial services industry used to be one of the most secure areas of work. People did have a job for life and would encourage their children and grandchildren to enter banking and insurance companies. There was a recognised career path which enabled people to feel secure and to plan ahead.
As my noble friend Lady Turner told us, all that has now changed. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to debate the change. The financial services sector has experienced big fluctuations in employment. It has experienced new technology, deregulation, competition and changes of ownership. All that has led to a casualised and pressurised workforce.
The impact of new technology on the industry has been enormous. Not only have computers and data bases replaced many of the old clerical jobs, but the new communications systems also mean that people need to be in their offices far less. There used to be a time when a new technology could mature within a company or an industry so that people could feel comfortable with it before putting it into effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, told us, today there is no time for that. So as technologies change, the people operating the old technology move out, and those skilled in the new technology move in. There is little recruitment for training, just wholesale change. From the employer's

249
point of view, it is best to have those specialist people on short-term contracts or employed through agencies to facilitate a rapid turnover.
A second reason for insecurity is the new style of management. No longer do we have the old-style generalist bank manager or insurance manager who would advise on everything from your overdraft, to operating your business, or making a will. Today "focus" is in fashion, so the new style of management is built around specialist products. There is one specialist who will advise you on your overdraft, another on your mortgage. another on your will. Organised that way, the business depends less on personal relationships and more on specialist knowledge. That development tends to upset career progression, again leading to more insecurity.
A third reason for insecurity is the many recent changes in ownership. That has disturbed the usual recruitment and career patterns because new owners need to rationalise and merge operations. In addition, building societies become banks, which means that shareholder value becomes the top priority. That produces other pressures which add to the insecurity. As a result, we now have an industry where an estimated 64 per cent. of people have no employment rights; where short-term contracts and employment through agencies are becoming the norm, and insecurity is endemic.
That insecurity operates at all levels in the industry, from the boardroom to the messenger. It is a fact of life. How Mr. Ian Lang, the President of the Board of Trade, could say to the CBI last November that job insecurity was only a "state of mind" beggars the imagination. Perhaps he had in mind the different ways in which that insecurity is rewarded. At the top of the tree, it is rewarded by high salaries, generous share options, insurance and comfortable pensions. By contrast, insecurity is rewarded lower down the ladder with low pay, no share options, no insurance and no pensions.
How do the Government react to all that? They welcome it. They say that it provides flexibility of employment which, in turn, removes people from dependency on the state. The opposite is, of course, true. The insecurity makes people more dependent on the state. What is more, without insisting on minimum conditions at work, the Government encourage bad employers to use the benefits system to subsidise low wages and low investment.
Of course, the better companies have now realised that all that impacts badly on customer care. They realise that the pendulum of fashion may have swung too far one way. The better companies are more perceptive than the Government and realise that flexibility at work is not just ease of hiring and firing. Flexibility to become more competitive means a different attitude by employees. That kind of flexibility means working flexible hours, adapting to new technology, learning new systems and methods, discarding old ideas, and understanding the need to be competitive and to work more effectively. Better employers also understand that they will not achieve that flexibility by rewarding it with insecurity.
250
I agree with my noble friend Lady Turner that we cannot put the clock back, but what has been the Government's response to that change? Do they try to balance a fair society with an efficient economy? No. The Government's response is the jobseeker's allowance, which does nothing for the unemployed. All it does is tackle the claimant counts.
Fortunately, better firms realise that although they have to work in a competitive environment, human beings are not a tradable commodity. While they want to have the benefits of casual employment, they want also to motivate their staff, keep morale high, and be a fair employer so that they can attract the best people to their companies. They need the economic benefit of casual employment, but they need also to satisfy their customers. They need their employees to perform well, and they also need their commitment and loyalty.
The way to achieve that is not by taking away the rights of workers, as encouraged by the Government, but to turn insecurity into security. So, the better firms do give employees employment rights, even though they can fire them the following day. They will also give them a feeling of security and reduce the fear of change by offering training for employability. Labour's University for Industry is designed to do precisely that.
What is the effect if we do not give people more security? My noble friend Lady Turner told us. Living on poverty wages, in conditions of permanent stress and insecurity, has a dreadful effect on society. As the hours of work in which a decent wage can be earned grow longer and longer and more uncertain, so there will be more and more stress on family life. It is no accident that more and more child rearing has fallen on single women. That insecurity leads to people living on income support and resorting to the black economy. That affects everything from the housing market to social security spending, and damages the growth prospects of the entire economy.
Indeed, in his November Budget Mr. Clarke predicted that the economy would grow by 3 per cent. driven largely by a surge in consumer spending. Who are those consumers upon whom Mr. Clarke is depending? Why, the very insecure, low paid people we are discussing in this debate.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, let me first declare an interest, as I am a former chairman of one of the major high street banks and a member of its pension fund. I shall confine my remarks to banking because that is the part of the financial services industry about which I know most.
I accept, as in the terms of the Motion, that there has been a considerable change in the pattern of employment in the financial services industries. However, I am surprised that the noble Baroness chose the financial services, because the arguments that she and the noble Lord. Lord Haskel, put forward seemed to put the financial services in the position of being the good boys. They are doing so many of the things that they urge should be done. I shall develop some of those points later.

251
The whole pattern of employment has changed substantially. I regret some of that as did my noble friend Lord Stewartby. I remember being taken as a boy by my father into the local bank. He would talk over the counter to the manager and the transactions were entered in manuscript into the bank ledgers. It was all very comfortable and friendly, and, I think, secure. But that could not last. Technology overtook all that.
My noble friend Lord Stewartby referred to present methods which cut out the need for any man or woman power: the computers, records are stored at a distance, and, without being touched by human hand, they can be recalled by the touch of a button, and so forth. That of course does away with a great amount of human effort. Cash can be obtained by using a card in the high street. There is no need to go to a counter where someone counts out the money and dishes it out. All those changes have made a tremendous difference to patterns of employment.
Alongside that, there has been a vast increase in bank usage, both in the huge increase of customers in the banking sector and in the variety of services offered by an industry which originally may have been looked upon as mainly taking and giving cash.
A few years ago —no doubt it has changed today —if all the cheques that went on one day into the bank of which I was chairman were placed one on top of the other, they would reach three times the height of the NatWest Tower. Each one of those cheques had to be handled three times. That shows the size of the task. No doubt in the years since I recorded that event, things have changed. There are more credit cards and other forms of cash transfer which may well have reduced that total. Yet the total number of people employed in the major clearing banks has varied very little.
In 1984 the major clearing banks employed about 290,000 people. Today I believe there are about 285,000 employed, despite the vast increase in the usage by customers and the variety of services. There have been fluctuations. The numbers have increased and they have decreased as a result of changes made.
The noble Baroness was unfortunately critical of part-time workers. Part-time workers are of great value in banking. Part-time working is also valuable to those who do it. A typical example is the good lady who mans the cash till. Those hours fit in conveniently with school hours. It is convenient for a mother to have that part-time job at a cash till and then be able to collect her children from school. Part-time work is one of the great assets that the financial services industry can and does supply.
I think noble Lords will find that the clearing banks in general have been pace-setters for many of the best employment practices, whether it be with regard to maternity leave, cr éches and that kind of thing; and in training. The noble Baroness referred to training. I doubt whether there is any industry that has spent more per head on training than banking. Tens of millions of pounds a year are spent on various training courses run by the clearing banks. The aim is to give all members of staff at every level an opportunity to raise themselves to a higher level and to greater opportunities in the
252
future; and, at the same time, to provide members of staff with good, well-paid jobs in a social and environmental setting that suits them. Banks cannot and should not be criticised with regard to training.
There is of course one change that has been made to which the noble Baroness rightly and understandably referred: for a long time a job in a bank was looked upon as a job from cradle to grave. Someone joined the bank when they left school and left it when they retired on a pension. That had advantages and disadvantages. It had the advantage of providing staff security and loyalty, something to which the noble Baroness referred. But it limited somewhat the capacity to introduce into banking people at a level and at ages at which they could compete with that system. The change was often resented by members of staff who felt that that operated against their interests.
There have been redundancies in the past year or two resulting from mergers and the recession, but primarily from new technology. Yet I should be surprised if those redundancies cause much unemployment, because they have been dealt with mainly by early retirement and voluntary redundancy.
Bank staff receive training during their employment and banks have been devoted to helping to find new employment for those whom they have to make redundant. Therefore, I imagine that hank staff find it easier to find another job than those from other industries. I accept that for the person concerned unemployment is 100 per cent. I do not seek to say that we can welcome any unemployment. Of course, we dislike it. Furthermore, it is probably more painful for a person who is the only one to be made redundant in an office than it would he if he were one of, say, 1,000 people to lose their jobs because the factory has closed. However, I should be surprised if the number of redundancies in the banks has led to much of an increase in the unemployment register. Those people are very unemployable. Many operations have extended into banking operations —for instance, General Motors and Virgin —and they welcome trained banking staff to help them in their expansion.
The noble Baroness referred to figures which she had received from BIFU. I see that she nods in agreement. I believe that members of BIFU who leave a hank and take a job with, say, Virgin, will not then be members of BIFU and BIFU will report them as leaving banking and becoming unemployed. I believe that only a small number of people who are made redundant from banking remain unemployed for any length of time.
Problems have arisen in industries which have put off changing and have not been prepared to change. They delayed change until eventually everything closed down and they went bust. However, the financial services industries have been willing to change and to lead change. They have promoted many of the vital services that are now copied throughout the world. They have devoted themselves to creating and deploying new technology and they have faced increased competition from abroad. As a result, there is no doubt that London is the leading financial centre of Europe and probably of much of the world.

253
No industry has taken more account of the social requirements of the few of its staff whom it has been necessary to make redundant. The financial services industries have a record of which they can be proud.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing the debate so admirably. I had thought that one of the issues Members opposite would raise would be the introduction of new technology causing reductions in employment requirements. I was right. It has been one of the themes of the debate. However, the suggestion that the introduction of new technology has affected the financial services industries only during the past few years and not during the past 20, 30, 50 and 70 years is ingenuous.
We must recognise the changing pattern of demand for financial services. For various reasons, during the 1980s there was an explosion of demand in the industries. That was partly due to the liberalisation regime introduced by the Thatcher government and partly due to other factors. A demand for employees was generated and that brought security of employment which was not experienced by other citizens in the UK.
The noble Baroness referred to the problems in manufacturing industry. I had experience of the front line, so to speak, during the 1980s and I know that local authority employment was subject to the same attack. The health service also has been subjected to similar changing patterns of employment. As patterns of employment have changed during the past 15 years there has been the underlying reality of mass unemployment. We need look back only to the 1960s to realise that the situation can be different. At that time full employment was the objective of both Conservative and Labour governments. The restructuring of the electricity industry, led by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, caused a massive shedding of jobs. I remember 2,000 people in south London being made redundant virtually overnight. However, relatively soon afterwards they received their redundancy payments, courtesy of a Labour Government, and found alternative employment. That has not been the case during the past 15 years.
The financial services industries have to a certain extent been immune from such experiences. It is interesting to look at the products of those industries; perhaps I may give an example. About 22 years ago my wife took out a mortgage to buy our first home. Only building societies and local authorities were offering mortgages and only two types were available, endowment or repayment. That was it —two suppliers and two products. What is the case today? At the end of last year I went to my local building society to apply for a mortgage. I was amazed by the variety of options available. The matter was so complicated that I said, "I want the same kind of mortgage I had 20 years ago, a straight repayment mortgage". They said, "All right, we know what you are talking about. We will give you that".
254
I suspect that today in the financial services industries, instead of people being offered the bread and butter they need to survive they are being offered cake. We know that during the French Revolution Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake". That was totally inadequate at the time. I suspect that we are reaching a very similar situation today.
How do we deal with the problems caused by the changing patterns of employment in the financial services industries? My noble friend Lady Turner gave some very convincing explanations for the problems. She highlighted the importance of full employment. I reiterate that.
Employees in the financial services industries have skills which are in demand in our society. Generally speaking, they are numerate, and they have administrative skills. One interesting development over the past few years has been the creation of the Child Support Agency. Whether one agrees with the merits or otherwise of the agency, two matters are evident. First, there .appears to be a political consensus that it, or something like it, will carry on; secondly, it seems almost totally incapable of operating with a bare minimum of administrative efficiency. The House of Commons Select Committee report last year suggested that the agency achieved something like a 30 per cent. success rate in relation to its administration. That has now improved. According to the latest report, it has something like a 48 per cent. success rate. An organisation which gets wrong over half its basic administrative tasks cannot be said to be functioning effectively. There are employees in the financial services industries who have skills available which could be deployed. It is interesting to note that the agency was staffed, as was described to me, straight out of the jobcentres. The Civil Service recruitment agency was not employed for the task. Now the Government talk about privatising that agency.
A sensible government, looking at the problems, looking for solutions and using the resources available, could have redeployed people from the financial services industries into the agency.
Apart from individual examples of government action which could be taken, right across the political spectrum we need to readopt the consensus that existed for 30 years after the war; namely, that the object of government policy and social, political and economic policy is the maintenance of full employment. Until we readopt that consensus which served this country so well, not only will the people in the financial services industries suffer the problems of insecure employment but so too will everyone else.
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has introduced a very important debate on the financial services industry. I note that the Motion refers to it in the plural and, indeed, there are several sectors of the financial services industry. The sector which everyone thinks about is the City, which is the major producer of benefit to our GDP. But I must thank the noble Baroness for her very sensitive speech in

255
looking for support to find solutions to the intractable problems of unemployment in the industry. In the plurality of the word "industries", I believe that the Motion refers less to the boardroom and managers than perhaps to the foot soldiers in the industry.
Indeed, there has been a revolution in the financial services industry brought about by the arrival of a new breed of suppliers of services which were traditionally offered almost exclusively by life assurance companies. Deregulation has given new opportunities to the bancassurers and building societies which are competing for business generated by the introduction of new products such as TESSAs, PEPs, personal pensions and the favourable tax treatment for unit trusts, for which we must all be very grateful to the present Government.
The effect of deregulation has been to widen the scene for businesses which previously offered those services through intermediaries. They are now able to offer them themselves. Therefore, there may be an argument that increased activity and opportunities should cancel out any potential loss of employment. Indeed, it seems that that has been the case.
Of course, the foot soldiers are busy with the smaller investors rather than the man who goes direct to Lloyd's to insure his £500,000 house. They are rather dealing with the people who are trying to spend a few pounds per month investing for the future. Those are the people who are most at risk. Of course, there is a contrast. The Starred Question today dealt with a matter in which many millions of pounds were involved. It is the smaller people who are offering insurance who are most at risk.
The fact that bancassurers and building societies are merging is another example of how traditional businesses which offered security for life to their staff and employees subject, perhaps, to only a number of years of honest and true service, have now had to trim their conditions and rewards for service in the face of competition. On top of that, the mutual life assurance companies are reforming as plcs and in turn merging with banks and building societies. Meanwhile, those new financial products lend themselves to modern technology. In spite of that, employment is expanding due to the increased opportunities in marketing presented by those products.
Additionally, those products used to sell well in the old inflationary environment where it was seen that everything rose slightly ahead of high inflation. The Government have now managed, against all the odds, as we can see from the serious state of our colleagues in Europe, to lower inflation and keep it lower. That means that there is perhaps less excitement in the thrill of investment. Indeed, the bonuses from some of the with-profits policies are rapidly being withdrawn in the face of failure to keep up with the promises which they made in the past.
Nevertheless, the basic need for savings and investment remains. The increase in marketing opportunities have been overtaken by the range of new suppliers all using modern technology. At the same time, those products require sophisticated selling techniques by well-trained staff. As my noble friend Lord Boardman said, enormous sums have been spent
256
by the industry on training staff. That adds additional overheads and costs to the products that are sold and that in turn reduces the amount of profit that can be made.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who I know holds an important position on the PIA, I suggest that the rigorous requirements of the regulator are so comprehensive that it may be that three or four visits have to be made by a salesman before completing a transaction.
I took the opportunity to visit the office of a friend of mine who works in the industry as an agent of a life assurance company. He is a very respectable gentleman with an MA degree from Oxford and 40 years' experience in the industry. He has 26 pages of —there is only one word for it; it begins with "b" —which he has to complete. It is an impossible job.
No one is arguing that this protection of the potential investor or client is unnecessary. It is just that the requirements are so time consuming that the investor may become bored while the adviser finds little financial reward to compensate him. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stewartby suggested that over-regulation could become counter-productive. No matter how much electronic wizardry is employed, the papers have to be completed and signed and I wonder whether there could be a degree of acceptance of long-term and blameless record that would allow experienced advisers to operate with less supervision. Good regulation is not necessarily related to ever bigger rule books. Indeed, is not Brussels the perfect example of that?
It is the crook who needs to be discovered before he starts selling. Your ordinary adviser may be no financial wizard, as is the smooth talking crook, but he is basically honest and genuinely wishes to help.
I congratulate the Government on the extension of choice in offering the ordinary citizen such a wide range of investment opportunities and ask them to press on with the good work especially towards those 10 million employees and self-employed people who have no pension prospect other than the state provision. Perhaps there will then be less concern for the wider social effects that we all wish to relieve.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the debate today targets the financial services industries in particular, but the same trends and social consequences apply right across industry as a whole. To my mind, this is the root cause of the absence of the so-called feel good factor in our society today.
Social Trends states that part-time work for both men and women over the past decade has increased. Over that same period full time jobs for men have declined by 3 per cent. whereas 1.5 million more women were working in 1994 than in 1984. Those are considerable changes in the make-up of the workforce. Table 4.16 of Social Trends indicates that three-quarters of a million men and four and three-quarter million women work part time. In addition, it also indicates that 20 per cent. of full-time and 17 per cent. of part-time male workers work some kind of flexible work pattern; 30.2 per cent.

257
of full-time women and 35.5 per cent. of part-time women work some kind of flexible work pattern. This is completely different from the picture 10 years ago.
It is a trend which continues. For example, the Institute for Employment Research in a recent forecast up to the year 2001 portrays a labour market undergoing long-term restructuring with shifts to services and white collar work with most jobs created going to women, mainly part time and often on low rates of pay.
In her opening speech, my noble friend Lady Turner referred to some of the reasons for that change in the structure of the labour market. Changing social patterns have led to women's increasing participation in the labour market. This is now widely accepted as being a permanent feature of the labour market and clearly has had an effect on its structure. I regret to say that it has not always had an effect on the culture of the labour market.
The emergence of new technologies —most speakers have referred to them —have certainly revolutionised our methods and speed of working. The technological revolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, termed it, should have been a great boon to our economy. Ten years ago we were anticipating this effect. The great debate at that time was as regards how people would use their new leisure time, and what educational facilities were needed to help us use that time more effectively. Somehow that has not happened. Instead, recession has overtaken us and despite the technological revolution GDP is growing very slowly. The extra leisure that we have has become enforced leisure through higher unemployment. Restructuring is taking place in companies often without consideration of the social consequences. Women's growing participation in the labour market has been seen as an opportunity to reduce labour costs.
This picture is reflected across the board and in the financial sector. The financial sector was one of the sectors which was growing at quite a fast rate until 1990. Traditionally it was regarded as a male sector and one of great stability, as a number of speakers have already indicated. Banking certainly offered security par excellence and the bank manager was a pillar of the local community. All that is now different. Banks employ more women than men and often on a part-time basis. But other changes have taken place in the past five years when the growth stopped. Jobs have been considerably reduced. In fact one in every five jobs in banks has been lost. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said that that has not led to a great increase in unemployment or even in redundancies because of the policies that the banks were following to facilitate that. Nevertheless, it means a total reduction in the number of jobs available in banking and therefore fewer opportunities for employees in the future.
Some noble Lords may be surprised at my tone in speaking about the increasing number of women in employment. I normally speak in support of it; I certainly do so today. However, we have to take
258
account of a number of caveats. I accept the advantages of new technologies. They must be encouraged. But they must also be managed, and managed in the interests of the community as a whole as well as of the individual companies. I accept that because of their lifestyle many women need or prefer to work part time or to have some flexible working arrangement. Again, that is to be accepted. What is not acceptable is that women should be exploited and used as a source of cheap labour. I have always advocated pro rata terms and conditions for part-time workers with access to training and promotion. The prospects for that should exist, but it is not what the majority of part-time women workers achieve today.
Women have had to pursue their rights through individual cases in tribunals and in the courts. Case after case has established indirect discrimination against women because over 80 per cent. of part-time workers are women. Those cases have been taken under our own legislation —the Sex Discrimination Act —as well as under European legislation. Regrettably, they have sometimes had to be taken against the Government. Despite their avowed commitment to equal opportunity policies between the sexes, the Government have refused to extend rights to part-time women workers because, as they say, it would deter companies from creating new part-time jobs.
However, the Policy Studies Institute, in a cost benefit analysis of giving part-timers pay rates, pension rights, sick pay, holidays and other benefits equal to those in full-time employment, indicates that the cost would be "marginal" —that is, 0.5 per cent. of the national pay bill which, incidentally, is less than is paid to company directors in perks and expenses. The analysis goes on to indicate that even that cost could be partly offset by productivity gains through part-timers becoming more committed and loyal to their company because of the fairer policies.
The TUC estimates that only four out of 10 part-time workers get the same hourly rates as full-time workers doing the same job. Around 2.5 million part-time workers earn less than the national insurance threshold which, in turn, affects their rights to statutory sick, maternity and retirement pay. Recent research by the Equal Opportunities Commission indicates that flexibility and restructuring works more in the interests of companies than of women employees. That operates even in some of the more progressive banking systems, as one of the case studies indicates.
It seems to me that the Government have a number of policies which are in conflict with one another, as my noble friend Lord Haskel implied. Their policies create more jobs, usually at the bottom end of the market —that is, part-time and low-paid. In turn, those jobs, together with continued redundancies, put pressure on social security payments. That then means that their policies to reduce government expenditure are defeated. Equally, their employment and social security policies conflict with their equal opportunity policies.
I believe that we need a fresh approach to facilitating industrial change, to creating new jobs and to educating and training members of the workforce so that they can be flexible in the best application of that term.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords. I see the financial services employment scene as something of a paradox. We hear endless reports of job losses, not very much about new jobs and nothing at all about new company start-ups. We are in a position where our old financial services —not our new ones —are under attack both domestically and internationally; that is to say, banks, insurance, the Stock Exchange and those kinds of industries. There arc problems due to less manpower because of technology and there are those dreaded words such as "downsizing" and "outsourcing", restructuring; and, indeed, there is a tax on head office staff and on middle management.
Yet, Canary Wharf is now 75 per cent. full. Indeed, we were in the City the other day and we found the new LUC (the London Underwriting Centre) building 90 per cent. full. Prime space in the City seems to he full. We already have talk about Canary Wharf phase 2, and the City of London is gearing up looking for more prime sites to compete against it. There is something of a paradox there.
Let us go back a little and look at the employment scene from a different direction. In 1982, John Naisbitt wrote Mega Trends and pointed out that US agriculture had once employed one-third of the American workforce in 1900. However, by the time he wrote his hook in 1982, the percentage had reduced to 3 per cent. Moreover, US industry, going through the industrial revolution, was doing the same thing. That was followed by the information revolution which led, in turn, to leisure and services. He also pointed out that each of those ages gets shorter. He did not say why, but I suspect that that was because the pace of technology goes ever faster.
Mr. Naisbitt also pointed out another quite interesting factor; namely, that the USA's job creation rate had moved from 93,000 per annum in 1950 up to 600,000 per annum in 1982. He attributed that to the strategic resource now being information. He said that information industries were brain intensive, not capital intensive. I believe that we would probably say today that they were both. But, interestingly, he made no mention of the USA infrastructure which allows new business to flourish or of the risk culture in the states which encourages them to do so. I believe that we still have much to learn from the USA.
I turn now to 1994 when Delors wrote the White Paper Growth Competitiveness and Employment. He started with the famous question: Why this White Paper? —the sole and only reason is unemployment. He pointed out that the EU' s competitive position relative to the USA and Japan had worsened and that its growth rate had dropped from 4 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. per annum. Of course, at 2.5 per cent. per annum, that is, at best, a standstill. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia are growing steadily at rates of 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. He called for lifelong education and training and for greater flexibility in business. Indeed, we have already heard mention of that word.
It is interesting to note that Delors did not actually call for flexibility in government. His critics said that the EU was overburdened with regulation and that
260
employers were overburdened with employment costs in the form of taxes and that that discouraged job creation. We have quite a good example at present in the UK, as has already been mentioned, of the life assurance industry. Whatever its past sins, it has suddenly had to take on board a heavy burden of new regulation; a massive focus on review of past transactions; over-complex rules about how to sell a policy, although I am happy to tell my noble friend that the PIA told us only the other day that it was working on that aspect; and, of course, the resultant bad press. It is hardly surprising that the profits of the life assurance industry are down and that job creation is not exactly encouraging in that part of the financial services.
It seems that the first law of financial service regulation is that one quadruples the amount of paperwork that one makes and the second law is that you give it to those innocents whom you are trying to protect. Regulation definitely depresses job creation. Regulators do not work themselves out of a job despite all the good intentions of some of them to do so.
I turn now to a different aspect; namely, what is the unemployment rate? It is certainly not what the official figures suggest. We have already heard several times about contract jobs, part-time employment, temporary employment and about those who run several jobs at once and work from home by, perhaps, teleworking. All those activities are not fully accounted for in the statistics that we receive.
Let us consider, for example, some of the parliamentary special advisers whom I am sure many of us know. They work for several employers, both personal and corporate, at the same time and probably do more than the standard nine to five Monday to Friday job. But where are they in the employment statistics? Incidentally, although I cannot remember where I heard it, I was definitely told that Holland had increased its employment by 30 per cent. over an eight-year period through the use of temporary and part-time working.
Earlier I mentioned the indirect costs which governments can and do add to employment costs. Germany currently carries the highest indirect costs. I have some interesting labour statistics for 1994 which are worth quoting. They relate to costs per hour in US dollars averaged, I presume, over all work, not only the financial services. Those costs were: West Germany, 25 dollars; France and the USA, 16 dollars; the UK, 13 dollars; South Korea, 5 dollars; Indonesia, 0.3 dollars.
Asians make highly disciplined clerical workers. At least five years ago UK financial service companies started examining to what extent they could transfer clerical work to Asian countries. Presumably they are moving forward to see how much of their clerical accounting can be handled in those countries. If they do not they may not hold their business, given the cost differentials that I mentioned.
Does that mean that we have to drive down our own labour costs? I do not think so. However, I believe that it means that we have to be much more inventive. We need more innovation and more products which require

261
skills that other nations do not yet possess. It also means that we should be very circumspect about awarding ourselves too much pay.
Other nations in Asia with lower costs of living have also learned those clerical skills and that efficiency. Therefore we have to watch the situation carefully. UK job losses in the financial sector arising out of processing, as a result of changes in both technology and labour cost differentials, seem to me to be inevitable over time. It is interesting to learn that the Coopers' report forecasts a 30 per cent. reduction in the financial services industry over the next 10 years. I imagine that that is a major area that has been considered.
It is several years since Charles Handy warned us that the employment changes which have already been mentioned would cause a major shift in employee loyalty. He did not see the concept of a job for life continuing. I am a member of probably the last generation to have one. He said that an employee's first loyalty would be to himself, his second to his trade and his third to his employer. Interestingly, that has been the case for a number of years in one trade which no one has mentioned, that of the information technology professional. A professional in information technology can start his career in, for example, paper manufacture, move on later to the Stock Exchange and end up in the National Health Service. He is doing the same job and his pay relates to that of other information technology professionals, not to the disciplines in which he has worked. It is a paradox that despite the fact that he generates his own pay it is the computer industry which is currently starved of applicants with relevant skills. That brings us back to training.
Perhaps I may summarise the points that I have mentioned which I believe assist employment. Information industries are brain intensive and thus lead to innovation. There is a need to foster a risk culture in which success is rewarded, not envied. There is a need for life long education and training. There must be a supportive infrastructure for easy business start-ups. There must be no government taxation on jobs. There should be the least possible regulation, combined with tough laws, after the event, on monopolies and misdeeds. There must he better measurement of employment to cater for modern jobs, and a concentration on areas where we have excellence and can command our own job rates.
In my view the most important of those is freedom from regulation. I am prejudiced, because I spent my career bringing insurance from a highly regulated American insurance market to a then very free UK insurance market. That counted. Today, in the insurance market, and it is entirely our own fault, the shackles of regulation fall heavily on us at the very time when the USA is progressively deregulating insurance. Without doubt that affects not only employment in insurance in the UK but also UK invisible earnings, because insurance is a major earner for us. Incidentally, brokers —of whom I was one —bring in in excess of £1 billion a year, each year. to this country.
262
Perhaps I may end by mentioning a report, which no one else has mentioned but which I believe is very significant, issued by the Royal Society of Arts called Tomorrow's Company. The report said that tomorrow's company has:
"A new adaptability based on flexible working; commitment to organisational and individual learning —a job is a contract and not a fundamental right; creativity and teamwork —innovation is a team game; people working across multiple technologies; openness on future job cuts and help re. new skills; the will to create opportunities for minorities and to help employees to develop their own enterprises: the will to use the intellectual resources of all".
I hope that those are some of the ways in which we may he able to improve employment, not only in the financial sector but everywhere.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I owe an apology to the House and also to my noble friend for not being in my place when she opened the debate. I had told her that I might find it difficult to be present, and so it proved.
Being the last speaker I am in the happy situation of not having to repeat what has already been said. We have been over the ground thoroughly and heard some very interesting speeches.
Perhaps I may say in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, that I believe that it is right to emphasise that we are witnessing a change within the financial sector in the form of a decline in the old products industries and perhaps also in the new products industries. The old products were in large firms with lots of employees and the new products are generated largely by self employment and small firms. Some of the shrinkage in the financial sector could be accounted for by those gross changes, which are different from the net changes that we have observed.
It is interesting that for a long time we used to make a distinction between manufacturing and services. We thought that manufacturing was solid and production-based while services were protected. We have to think of tradable manufacturing and tradable services. The financial services sector, especially in the UK, has become part of the tradable sector which faces global competition, partly due to the Big Bang and partly due to the various technological changes that we have observed.
Manufacturing and financial services have gone through the same cycle whereby productivity and competitiveness are required merely to stay in the same place and not lose jobs. Competitiveness does not create new jobs in manufacturing; it minimises the loss of jobs. It is essential to be productive because that generates wealth. We are observing that while more output may be produced in manufacturing the number of people is shrinking. For the first time in more than 100 or 200 years we are in a position where wealth creation no longer runs in parallel with job creation. Wealth-creating sectors are not generating jobs. Under the old-fashioned labour theory of value we somehow expect that wealth will be created by hands and brains. We have to learn to think anew in that respect. All those services —not merely financial services —which are subject to

263
competition, especially to open entry from abroad, or subject to technological revolution will have the characteristic of creating wealth but not jobs.
That will mean that those who survive in this sector will either have insecure jobs or, if they have secure jobs, highly paid jobs. Therefore, in manufacturing and the tradable services sector we shall end up with highly paid people, but few of them.
The problem is what we as a society do about that. What are the social consequences? That was a question: raised by my noble friend. One interesting consequence of competitiveness in the financial services industry has been that at the same time as more people are using banks and financial services and fewer people are employed in those sectors there is a great deal more consumer dissatisfaction with financial services on the part of small firms and of people who use banking and retail services.
Despite all we hear about competition, bank charges have increased. I shall be more explicit. I have never understood why that is the case but perhaps previously bank charges were hidden by the fact that I had non-interest-bearing deposits. Now I receive the interest on the one hand and have bank charges on the other.
Something that I am sure will arise out of market forces and our response to them is that people will need intermediaries in order to obtain better services from banks. One of these days people will have to learn how they can get better service out of banks. It has almost become a specialist job. We all know of the recent case of the people who took a loan from the bank, tried to sue the bank for bad advice and then were sued in return. Obviously, taking a loan from a bank is a specialised activity and no longer as free of problems as it used to be. Perhaps there will be specialists to tell one how to deal with banks.
There might be some job creation where banks concentrate on products rather than on a package of total services, as my noble friend Lord Haskel pointed out. If banks are into selling products rather than services, people will have to buy some of the services elsewhere. I do not believe that that will create many jobs but there will he a growing sector with consumer complaints and the need for consumer help in dealing with financial services.
Far more interesting is that we will have to face up to the issue of where the jobs will come from. That is riot the issue today; we are not dealing with the general question of where the jobs will be found. However, we must be clear about this. Not only will jobs not arise easily from the financial services sector but —I agree with most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon —there is no way in which we can artificially create jobs in such a sector. That would not be right and it would certainly not be the way we shall have to take.
Given that the nature of the financial services sector is changing as new products are added, perhaps we ought to have a better notion of the changing structure of employment. That is not just the total number but, for example, how many people are self-employed rather than employed, how many people are full time or part time, what we include in the financial services sector
264
and what we exclude. In management consultancy the number of firms has grown while the traditional financial services area has shrunk. Consultants are much more brain-intensive, with more face-to-face work. They do not sell a single product, but rather a complex combination of products and services.
Our future lies with people who will sell face-to-face services which cannot easily be automated. Once upon a time banking used to do so, but that is no longer the case. If the underwriter gives a face-to-face service, that kind of job will grow.
I believe that we face the problem of a shrinking financial sector in job terms but a growing financial sector in terms of wealth. We will have to learn to manage our non-tradable sector so that we can create jobs in it; transferring some of the surplus created in the tradable sector in order to make jobs for people such as teachers, nurses or retail sales people. Whoever they are, we shall have to create jobs in the non-tradable sector where the nature of competition is low and product innovation moves more slowly than before.
There is no easy answer and no political party has the inside track on one. Despite everything we can do on labour market flexibility, competitiveness and so on, at most such devices slow down the rate of job loss. They do not positively create new jobs. We do not know how to create new jobs positively.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for having initiated the debate. I have no personal experience of the financial services industries other than dealings with branches of my bank and building society. However, for nearly 30 years I had the good fortune to work securely for ICI. The changing patterns of employment to which the noble Baroness's Motion refers are also to be seen to a degree in manufacturing industry.
The debate takes us to the heart of employment problems generally and the effects they have on the cohesion of society. Our dilemma stems from the development of both new technology and flexible working. Many of the ways in which that is taking place have been instanced; part-time and temporary employment, the use of short-term contracts, movement from job to job to meet changing economic conditions, and so on. I share the concern expressed about the effects of those developments. People who remain in the same employment —many in posts carrying great responsibility —are suffering the stress of having to work longer hours in place of those who have been made redundant. There is the insecurity occasioned by the fear of so-called downsizing, mergers, takeovers and, in the financial services among other things, the disturbing consequences of building societies being turned into banks. There is also the unwillingness of people to take on long-term housing and insurance commitments and in many cases the inability of householders to move because they are caught in the trap of negative equity.

265
There are all those and other difficulties. However, I wish to make clear that I am among those who believe that there is no going back. The overriding need for us to compete in a global market means that flexible working must be accepted. The question is how best, in the short term, the social effects can be mitigated and, in the longer term, the number of people in employment maximised thus avoiding the horrors of a society such as that portrayed in a recent "Panorama" programme. In it the haves retreat behind their guarded laager and the have-nots live in penury outside.
In looking for remedies, I wish to concentrate on three matters. I speak in trepidation because I am far from being an economist. There is need for a thoroughgoing review of our national insurance and benefits system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded us, in the economy as a whole it appears that only about 40 per cent. of the workforce now enjoy tenure of full-time employment or secure self-employment. Another 30 per cent. are insecurely self-employed or are part-time or casual workers, while the bottom 30 per cent. are either working for very low wages or are idle.
As Mr. Will Hutton points out in his book, The State We're In, while a labour market of this divisive kind may seem rational for firms cutting costs or for a government trying to curb inflation, its wider economic and social impact has been disastrous in increasing inequality and poverty and necessitating inflated public spending on the welfare state. It is high time to strike a balance between the competing demands of flexible employment and security by moving towards the concept of a minimum family income, however small it may at first have to be. That would do away with the present rigid division between benefits and earnings and help to ensure that people are no longer discouraged from entering the labour market. To the extent that there are now influential people in all three political parties thinking along these lines, there may even be hope that the necessary action can be taken on a co-operative basis.
Secondly, the advantages of retaining flexibility in the labour market need to be balanced by reducing the adverse impact on part-time staff of insecurity and sometimes exploitation. That could he done by bringing their employment conditions increasingly into line with those of full-time tenured employees. Until now, the Government have insisted that that would have the effect of pushing up costs to business, leading either to price rises or to compensatory job cuts.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, told us, a recent analysis by the Policy Studies Institute concluded that the effect on employment would be broadly neutral and that any extra cost would be minimal. It needs to be set against other expensive aspects of employment, such as turnover and the need to attract employees of better quality and to enhance their motivation and commitment to the job.
Already, according to a survey carried out by the Institute of Personnel and Development, as many as 84 per cent. of UK employers offer part-timers holiday
266
and pension benefits similar to those of full-time staff. It seems therefore that the practice makes sound economic sense and should now have general application.
Thirdly, in education and training, I welcome the Government's decision last year to co-ordinate responsibility for the two functions in a single department. My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf suggested in a debate last June that individual learning accounts should be established to be financed by employers, individuals, and where necessary the taxpayer. That would enable people, in the course of their working lives, to draw on their accounts when they needed training to improve their job opportunities or change their career. It would fulfil the purpose of providing learning and re-training on a life-long basis. A recent newspaper article mentioned that the possibility of introducing such accounts, which is now being examined, I understand, by both the Government and the Labour Party, had encountered some criticism on the grounds that people who are unemployed, self-employed or on low incomes might find themselves excluded. I do not see why that should be so if there was a contribution from the state. Even if that were not forthcoming, it is not a convincing reason for withholding such arrangements from others, including no doubt people working and seeking employment in the financial services.
At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for daring to advocate that the taxpayer might be further involved in such transactions, let me reiterate that my party does not shrink from the prospect of adding a penny to the standard rate of income tax if that proves necessary to finance education and training, among other times, after school leaving age. The great advantage of money so spent is that it would be investment in wealth creation and the production of future income, not expenditure on consumption.
The same may be said of investment in the infrastructure. It would give renewed hope of employment to some of the thousands of engineering and construction workers now out of work and it would have a beneficial effect, if only indirectly, on people employed in the financial services. Sadly, that cannot be said of some of the unproductive schemes, however well-intentioned, that are sometimes put forward as a means of keeping people in work. That is because, in the last resort, they fail to meet the overriding need to improve competitiveness.
My only other point may seem a little surprising coming from these Benches rather than those of Labour. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure, along with others, of exchanging views in informal surroundings with the general secretary of the TUC and leaders of major trade unions. I was pleased to find how much common ground there was between us in confronting and looking for solutions to employment problems.
Following events culminating in the winter of discontent in 1979, the Government were right to deal, by means of legislation, with some of the worst abuses of power practised by the unions. Although on these

267
Benches we supported much of that early legislation,I have not ceased to believe in the need for trade unions and in the ultimate right of employees, if necessary, to take collective action within the law against unscrupulous employers.
I said earlier that there were grounds for hope that some of the problems discussed today could be handled in a co-operative way. To that end, I should like to think that the Government are willing, not to return to the corporatism of the 1970s, but to search for solutions genuinely and to involve and seek the support of what I believe is now a more responsible trade union movement. I say that because in my experience of the management of change in industry, decisions are more likely to find acceptance with individuals and groups of people if they are taken after consultation with those who will be affected by them.
5.16 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the debate has been very interesting and informative. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling an extremely useful Motion. To recall its words she talks not just of the financial services industries analysing the transformation in conditions of employment in those industries. She asks us also to consider the wider social effects. I want to concentrate on those effects and try to summarise some of the points made on this side of the House. We have been very much together. I also want to refer to points which I do not believe have been contradicted or, for the most part, disagreed with by the three speakers on the other side. Once again, we have a fair degree of agreement.
A question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, about the extent to which there is a decline in employment in the financial services. I looked to see what information I could find in Labour Market Trends, the re-named Department of Employment Gazette. It suggested that in general terms financial services have declined from about 1.1 million, however measured, to about 1 million over the past 12 months, a rate of decline overall of something in the region of 8 per cent. If my memory serves me aright —I may be wrong —that trend has existed since the peak period of the early 1990s. So we have seen a gradual decline in overall employment in the sector.
But the significant point emphasised by the noble Baroness is not so much the overall decline but the change in composition. That is the transformation —the change from employment of males to employment of women, the change in the sexual composition and the change in employment tenure and the change from full-time to part-time working, and from life-time, or assumed life-time, employment to short-term contracts. In the financial services the transformation is not simply represented by the loss in numbers, although that continues. It is represented in the terms of employment, the nature of employment, and the kind of people who are increasingly becoming "typical" employees.
We talk these days of atypical employment. In labour economics that means employment that is not full-time and not life-time. But it is time to change. For life-time employment is not typical employment but atypical
268
employment. It is the unusual person who takes a job and stays there for the rest of his or her working life or assumes they will. They may leave when they want to to get better employment. It is the atypical person who works full-time. As we see increasingly, the majority of people in the workplace are not in that privileged category. The 40 per cent. or so who are privileged must come increasingly to be regarded as the atypical, lucky devils who have managed to continue in that way.
What is so awful is that as a result everything comes to them. They are the people whose real earnings have increased by 50 per cent. or more since 1979. They are the people who have profit-sharing and bonus options. And if they have profit-related pay they probably designed the scheme themselves. They are the people who have rolling contracts so that if their employment is severed, they have nice compensation agreements. They are the fat cats.
Of course, there may be some fairly thin cats. Perhaps not all Members of the House heard the other day that the chief executive of NAHAT was asked about the chief executives of trusts who now earn on average about £90,000 a year. He was asked whether such people were fat cats. He pointed out that most of them have contracts only lasting a year and that 25 per cent. of them were not reappointed last year. You may think that this is a crazy way to run an industry. However, they may be fat cats but they do not have job stability or job security. And below there are the much larger group who are marginalised and insecure. Below them again are the unemployed.
As has been said by all speakers on this side of the House, no one feels that all this is the fault of the Government. I want to stress that. Also, no one says that the situation is unique and peculiar to this country. In so far as we know the causes of the move away from full-time and life-time employment, they are very close to the kind of reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
First, there has been a growth of global product markets to a point where they have virtually destroyed the existence of protected, insulated labour markets. There are no longer any protected insulated labour markets. Secondly, as has been said, there has been a shift in the capital:labour ratio which, in this country alone, has destroyed 4 million manual workers' jobs since 1979, most of them semi-skilled and unskilled. Thirdly —the crux of the matter —we are beginning to see analogous (not identical) developments in finance, accountancy and service industries where the same thing is happening to large numbers of clerical workers whose promotion and security prospects are in decline.
The fourth and final reason —I mention it only because it is there, not because I have a solution —is the failure of world capitalism. We live in a capitalist world. And world capitalism since the early 1970s has failed to obtain in overall terms anything like the growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s. When those four points are put together, one sees that the problem is not the Government's fault. But it is a problem the Government seem to do nothing about. I do not believe one can find a statement from a responsible government Minister expressing any sense of regret. The

269
Government do not seem to feel sorry that a major change of considerable disadvantage to a large number of citizens in this country has occurred as a result of the 40-30-30 division. They talk all the time as though it is an unqualified good thing. Of course, they do not like unemployment. But I do not recall a Minister in any way regretting a change in the conditions of the labour force which has meant superiority moving towards the employer and the isolation of those who are doing well from those who are not. The Minister today cannot stop the process. Of course, he cannot. He might as well try to stop Friday. But he might say something about the consequences for millions of citizens. I should like to mention a few of the things he might do.
The Government have encouraged the process towards part-time working. It is calculated that in the social security services, the Civil Service, local government, with the contracting-out provisions, the Post Office and Telecom, before privatisation, government policy has destroyed some 750,000 full-time jobs. The pace of casualisation and part-time working in those services has been more rapid than anywhere else. The Government could stop and think whether they want to continue at precisely that pace in the future.
Secondly, there is the most obvious example of all. What about the two-year rule? What possible justification can there be now for a situation in which only 36 per cent. of workers in employment are covered by unfair dismissal provisions? The original intention of the six-month rule —it was not a two-year rule except at the very beginning and that was caseload —was to make a distinction between the period in which people were working and the period when they were trying to find their way into the job, in other words a period of probation. For six months there were to be no unfair dismissal rights. After six months one had unfair dismissal rights because at that point the employer could decide whether or not he would dismiss the employee.
But what is the rationale of a two-year rule? Why should it be there when we know that 90 per cent. of people with short-term contracts cannot possibly qualify for any of the rights that follow from the two-year rule? The Government know that very soon, when the Seymour-Smith case goes forward, they may very well be told —as they have been told in the Court of appeal already —that the two-year rule is discriminatory anyway on grounds of sex discrimination. Why cannot the Government say that, in the light of what has happened and in view of the insecurity that affects 30 per cent. of the labour force, the two-year rule is an anomaly and unjustifiable and that they will anticipate the House of Lords or the European Court of Justice and get rid of it? I ask the Government tonight to defend that rule in the light of what we know about those to whom it applies.
Finally, I make no apology for coming back to the question of job creation. It is clear that, short of a miracle of a kind we cannot foresee, a considerable number of our citizens will find themselves, after their third short-term job on two days a week, on the dole and receiving benefit. After a while they will find that
270
they are six months or seven months on the dole or perhaps two years. At that point all the evidence suggests that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for those people to return to the labour force. Certainly, they will not get back among the favoured 40 per cent.
On two separate occasions I have asked the Minister to tell me what has happened to the very modest proposals that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he intended to introduce two years ago for workshare —a £60 maximum two-year subsidy for additional workers taken off the two-year waiting list. An IMS study last year showed that it had produced only 40 per cent. dead weight and six out of 10 positive results. In this case the Government are saving money on unemployment benefit by putting people into work via workshare. Why cannot the Government introduce the scheme on a wider scale? Frankly, all I receive is prevarication. I am tired of one pilot scheme after another. There have been three years of pilot schemes. When will the Government put workshare into more general application and see whether it takes people off the long-term unemployment register.
Secondly, I have asked the Government about the national insurance holiday which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the year before last as an immediate solution. It has not yet been introduced, but we are told that it will be in April this year. I should like to ask a precise question. The last time I asked the Minister gave an answer I could not work out. He told me that it would remove 130,000 from the register and would cost £50 million. If so, it would be an extraordinarily cheap scheme. It would cost the Treasury around £7 a week for each person off the register. How can that be effective when we are told that the workshare scheme, which gives far more money, is not effective? On that basis I do not believe that the Government's job creation programme makes sense.
We on this side of the House have put together a series of measures which could begin the change that is needed. The Government should at least face it. We are moving into an economy of part-time, short service, casualised labour. That is becoming the typical form of employment. Do not the Government regret that? Cannot they do something about it?
5.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we have had a fascinating debate and, as always in this House, a wealth of experience has been placed before us. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who introduced the debate, as always brought her trade union perspective to it. We had a wealth of experience on equal opportunities matters from a former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. From the groves of academe we had the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Desai. For real practical hands-on experience of the financial services sector, from my side of the House, we heard from my noble friends Lord Boardman, Lord Stewartby and Lord Chelmsford.

271
There were other interventions. The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Rochester, both spoke with considerable experience of the manufacturing sector, which went through similar changes a short time ago. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the warm welcome he gave to the merger of the Department for Education with the Department of Employment. That is a merger that has gone very well and we are still awaiting such a welcome from the party opposite.
As always the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, stressed the commitment of his party to the spending of that extra penny of income tax on education and training. I note that commitment as we have noted it many times. However, I suspect that that extra penny has been spent many times over in the dreams of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I would be interested to know on exactly what it is to be spent. Perhaps they will inform us in the future.
We then had the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for which again I am grateful. With his universality of wisdom he will offer the benefit of his wisdom to this House on three separate occasions this afternoon, as well as speaking on two of the Questions earlier today. We are all deeply grateful for the depth and vision that the noble Lord brings to our deliberations. However, perhaps I can correct him on one small matter, in case his expertise misleads Members who listened to his welcome contributions. I can assure him that the numbers employed in health activities, unlike the impression he gave, have increased from 1.2 million in the early 1980s to nearly 1.5 million today.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The point I was trying to make related to the instability and insecurity of employment in the National Health Service, rather than to a reduction in the figures.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that anyone who is properly qualified in the medical world will have few problems in finding a new job should they wish to move round. My figures show a dramatic increase in health activity and come from a booklet referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, Labour Market Trends, incorporating the Employment Gazette, about which the noble Lord wrote to me some time ago. He asked whether we could guarantee its continued existence after the merger and I am pleased to say that it is still in existence. Indeed, we all seem to be clutching a copy.
We have a proud tradition in banking and the financial services sector generally in this country. It employs a considerable number of people —920,000, up from 750,000 in the early 1980s. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made clear, that is down from its peak of a little over 1 million some time around 1990. The figures appear on page S12 of the Employment Gazette. I believe they are perfectly clear and find it surprising that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, found them difficult to identify.
The financial services sector employs a large number of people. It is a key sector —as all speakers made clear —for our prosperity as a nation but, like many
272
others, it is undergoing radical structural change. Quite rightly several speakers drew attention to the effect on jobs brought about by the changes in the financial sector and the uncertainty that changing patterns of work can bring. But it is important to put that issue into its proper context.
Britain's economy is doing very well indeed, despite what one may think when listening to the speeches of noble Lords opposite. I suspect that they were influenced by thoughts of Will Hutton and his so-called "seminal" book. The economy is doing well. Our economic policies are delivering sustainable growth. low inflation and rising prosperity. We are in the fourth year of an economic recovery which is the strongest of any major country in the European Union. Output is nearly 6 per cent. above its previous peak. Growth is steady and strong —2 per cent. this year —and inflation has stayed low. Further, taxes and interest rates have been cut and mortgage rates are the lowest for a generation. Living standards are rising and, with unemployment continuing to fall, more and more people are benefiting. Unemployment was down again last month to a four-year record low. We have growing numbers of successful companies and rising numbers of people in work.
Britain's place as a key financial sector is assured. London is one of the three leading international centres in the world and the largest in Europe. We should remember that, though a predominance of work in the financial services industry is in the South East, it is not only the South East that benefits. Many jobs exist in other parts of the country and many new jobs are appearing throughout the country. One only needs to look at the size of the financial sector in cities such as Leeds and Edinburgh to know how well they are doing.
What sets London apart is the size of its international business. According to the Bank of England, average daily foreign exchange dealings in London are 464 billion dollars —almost 60 per cent. higher than in 1992. London's turnover far exceeds that of New York and Tokyo, with signs that its lead is increasing. Net overseas earnings of the United Kingdom financial sector were a record £20.4 billion in 1994, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, assured us. I can add that that is up nearly 30 per cent. on the previous year.
Our strong competitive position has not come easily. It has meant that financial institutions have had to keep up with changes in technology and world markets. The high street has not been immune to that change. It has meant the loss of some jobs just as some jobs were gained, particularly in the 1980s as we saw the size of the sector rise to a little over 1 million from 750,000. It has now dropped to 920,000. But that change could not have been avoided and to try to do so would have meant flying in the face of economic common sense, as my noble friend Lord Stewartby made clear.
The sector is highly competitive on an international scale and to take steps to keep staffing levels artificially high in the short term risks losing more jobs over time. There has obviously been a technology revolution in banking practice. The innovations which have made available 24-hour cash machines, telephone banking and

273
the like have made the whole of the banking industry less reliant on people. But the benefits of automation and computerisation are enormous. Quite apart from the increased level of service for personal account customers, a more efficient and effective banking sector is of immeasurable benefit to industry and commerce.
There has been a revolution in the shopping patterns and the social habits of the population. The days when a bank could get away with opening its doors at 9.30 a.m. and closing them at 3.30 p.m. five days a week are long gone. Customers demand access to their cash 24 hours a day and automatic cash machines are the best way to deliver that service. One should recognise that new technology does not always destroy jobs. Most people would accept that that would be a Luddite view. We know that new technology can in the long term very often create new jobs and with them create new wealth and prosperity.
The dramatic growth in 24-hour telephone banking has untapped a huge latent demand for more flexible banking. The 400 new jobs last year and the 300 to come this year at First Direct in Leeds and the 425 at the Co-operative Bank in Stockport are proof that not all is doom and gloom in the financial sector, as the noble Baroness and some of her colleagues seem to imply. As I said earlier, that also seems to show that not all the new jobs necessarily need to be focused in London and the South East.
For some the transition has been painful. No one likes to hear of people losing their jobs but it is clear that overmanning and over-capacity have been features of the United Kingdom banking in the past. That has been true in the past of all industry and much of the service sector. The stark truth is that for the way we live today there are possibly too many banks and building societies on the high street chasing too little business. They are expensive to run and take up valuable resources —people and capital. It is therefore likely that there will be further job losses, as many of the banks have made clear.
However, as my noble friends Lord Stewartby and Lord Boardman pointed out, that is not to say that the banks themselves are not doing a great deal more to assist in the training of their employees. For example, Barclays Bank is spending some £300 million on training over the next five years. My noble friend Lord Stewartby mentioned the bank's imaginative involvement in work experience. I particularly welcome that as something from which many 16 and 18 year-olds could very much benefit. It is regrettable that that has very often been interpreted by the party opposite as a form of exploitation. There is a real commitment by banks to training their employees and to ensuring suitable opportunities for appropriate career development.
It is much more effective for the banking industry and the economy as a whole for the industry to restructure on sensible lines. In that way we will all benefit. The firms, the industries and the countries which prosper are the ones which see change coming and grasp the opportunities it brings. They are the ones in which new jobs are created as old ones disappear. That is the
274
answer to job security —not artificially to attempt to preserve jobs through subsidies, protectionism or regulation. All that achieves is to postpone the evil day. The jobs would go anyway and because such firms fall further behind in the technological race, when collapse comes it is often total. Instead of some jobs going, all may be lost.
Industry is also reliant on a good financial sector. It provides support when it is needed most. That in turn leads to jobs. So it makes no sense just to look at the raw figures for job losses in the banking and finance sectors, or even at the job gains in innovative companies such as Direct Line. To get the full picture one must look at Britain's total industrial performance. As I said earlier, the facts are that the economy is growing healthily, the number of jobs has been rising steadily and unemployment has been falling —and falling now for some 28 months consecutively.
Much was made about the position of the growth in part-time employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was right to say that part-time employment has increased. In the banking sector it is up by some 2 per cent. However, as my noble friend Lord Boardman made clear, most people who work part-time do so because it suits their work patterns. It is what they particularly want to do. A survey of a year or two ago —I forget exactly when so I cannot cite the reference off-hand —concluded that only 14 per cent. of people who work part time do so because they cannot find a full-time job. There are many people for whom part-time work is the appropriate work because it is appropriate for their individual circumstances.
We should not regret the growth in part-time work. It is one of the reasons why so many women in this country have been able to take on work. It is one of the reasons why there has been a growth in female participation. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, accepts that and now accepts, I think, that the amount of part-time work is higher than in virtually all other EC countries. We would accept, as the noble Baroness made clear, that this change is probably a permanent one. But, as she also made clear, it brings changes to which we have to adapt. I do not accept that it has happened as a means of attempting to reduce costs. Again, as the noble Baroness will know, there has been a considerable narrowing over the years of the differentials between average rates of pay for women and average rates of pay for men. Now there is the narrowest gap ever and I imagine that the trend will continue over the years. I certainly accept that the higher participation in part-time work is one of the strengths of the deregulated labour market in this country and one of those of which we ought to be proud.
In the fact that we are seeing unemployment coming down, we are certainly bucking the European trend. In France, the unemployment total has just passed 3 million. In Italy, unemployment is rocketing, and young people in particular are suffering badly. Even in Germany, unemployment is also rising fast. I rather resent the accusations of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others, that the Government do not do anything to assist. I could, as I have done on a number of occasions, recite the vast number of programmes which my department. the

275
Department for Education and Employment, puts on offer both by way of assisting training and job search. It provides something of the order of 1.5 million opportunities a year for those out of work to assist them in their search for work or to assist them in training. The difference between us and the party opposite is that I do not see it as a job the Government can do. The Government cannot create jobs. What we can do is create the right economic environment in which jobs will be created. At least I seem to be getting some recognition of that from the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
In passing, perhaps I may say a little, in providing figures in comparison between us and the other labour markets, about the regional variations within this country.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will answer my two questions about work sharing and the NIS subsidy.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not be addressing those issues on this occasion but the noble Lord can be assured that, where appropriate, I shall be writing to noble Lords. However, if the noble Lord will allow me, in the short time I have available I shall deal with my speech in my own way.
For the benefit of the noble Lord I was going to tell him a little about regional variations in unemployment patterns in this country compared with other countries. He may find it of edification in terms of assisting him in knowledge about just how our deregulated labour market is operating. I can assure him that regional variations between the best region and the worst region in the United Kingdom are of the order of 7.2 per cent. If he goes to the more regulated economies of Germany, Spain or Italy he will find the figures in those countries are of the order of 14 per cent., 12 per cent. and 17 per cent. Those impose enormous strains on the country as they create much greater differences in levels of unemployment between one section and another.
We believe that one of the key ingredients for our success is that lightness of touch in our labour market. We are tough where it matters—in equal opportunities legislation, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, feels so strongly; on health and safety requirements and on unfair dismissal rules. But we do not interfere when we do not have to. That means businesses themselves can get on with running their companies in the most effective way. The result is that we have seen more jobs and a fall in unemployment.
What we have not seen, as noble Lords opposite seem to imply, is a massive growth in levels of temporary employment. I can assure the noble Lord that the proportion of workers in this country in what is described as temporary employment is a mere 6.3 per cent. If the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, goes to those countries with the much more regulated economies and regulated labour markets which he is seeking, in Germany he will find the figure to be 10.2 per cent., in France 10.9 per cent. and in Spain, where they have the unfair dismissal rules which he would like where even for large-scale redundancies
276
you have to go to the Minister to seek his permission, the figure is a massive 33.6 per cent. So no one will give you a job if they think they are going to be tied down.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, has the noble Lord got the trend figures?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not. Those are the current figures. He will find that we have a much lower rate of temporary employment than the other countries.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, but they have always been the same.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the regulated economy of the sort which the noble Lord so admires, where there are unfair dismissal rules of the kind that he seeks, we find that in Spain the figure is 32.6 per cent. because no one will be given a permanent job because they cannot be got rid of. A de-regulated labour market creates jobs, but the regulated market of the kind which the noble Lord likes would not. Over 7 million jobs now become vacant every year. As I believe everyone accepts, no one can be guaranteed the same job for life. But in a successful economy, with a de-regulated labour market, people can face the prospect of a job change with more confidence than in the highly regulated economies which the noble Lord and his friends look to so frequently.
I can assure my own noble friends and the House that, unlike the party opposite, we aim to ensure that the labour market, and in particular the financial services sector, remain free of the excessive regulation that noble Lords opposite seek.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, there is insufficient time to reply to all the points made by the Minister in response to this debate. I shall confine myself simply to thanking noble Lords on all sides of the House who have participated in the debate. There seems to be general agreement that we have some case when we talk about the lack of security in financial services employment. I repeat again what I was told in a letter from the union for Barclays Bank staff:
"Job security is a thing of the past; temporary and agency staff very much characterise the present".
I would also like to emphasise that as far as I am concerned—and I am sure that I speak for my noble friends—we want to see a successful financial services sector. Indeed, many of the members of my union work in it. Obviously, we wish to see the kind of successful environment that will provide good and continuous employment for them. I am also vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Services. I am glad that two members of that group on the other side of the House participated in the debate. We believe that the financial services sector is important, but we also feel that we are right to express our concerns about the feelings of staff working in this industry.
I am rather disappointed at the Minister's complacent approach in response to the many points made from this side of the House. Nobody is suggesting that there are

277
easy solutions and neither are we suggesting on this side of the House that one can go back 20 or 30 years to the situation as it once was.
On our side of the House we would like to see a little more acknowledgement of the fact that there are problems here; that the lack of security felt by people not only in this particularly important sector, but in the services sector generally, will have, and is having, a spin-off with certain social effects which I am sure the Government will not find very conducive to their success at the next election. These are people who hitherto have been mainly Conservative supporters, but they have had their faith in the system very badly shaken as a result of their employment experiences.
As regards the references to regulations, it is true that I am chairman of the PIA Ombudsman Council and therefore have some concern about regulation generally. I believe that a regulatory framework is necessary because of the public disquiet about certain things that have gone wrong in the investment sector. I also believe that there is a need to ensure that we have the right amount of regulation. One should not over-regulate because I agree that that can put a burden on employees and employers in the industry. That is something which the regulatory mechanisms are taking on board. I repeat my thanks to everyone who has participated in this extremely interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Overseas Development Administration
5.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to call attention to the future viability of the Overseas Development Administration in the light of the Fundamental Expenditure Review and the cuts in overseas aid announced in the last Budget; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are particularly grateful to the Minister for having made a special overnight journey from Southern Africa to be with us. We hope that she is not too exhausted.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the effectiveness and potential of sound overseas aid policies. In a powerful paragraph (4.10) the Overseas Development Administration's own Fundamental Expenditure Review spells out the evidence: post Second World War Europe, the East Asian Tigers, South Asia, Latin America and part of Africa —the record has been impressive.
In my own years of work with humanitarian agencies, I have seen for myself the countless community-level, aid-assisted success stories ranging from the farmers in Burkina Faso building walls to retain the scanty rainfall to irrigate their fields; the war victims of Mozambique seeking seed and tools to start growing their own food again; the brave women in the slums of Manila running their own community health service; the Indian villagers fighting for the environment and their own well-being with re-afforestation programmes; or the Peruvian
278
villagers effectively battling to build the river-retaining walls to prevent the flash-flooding which has repeatedly destroyed their villages.
Still today, while we celebrate multi-million pound lottery prizes, 800 million men, women and children go to bed hungry every night; 1.3 billion live below the poverty line and 35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases. Is that a world we are prepared to tolerate as we enter the new millennium? These stark statistics do not begin adequately to convey the sheer human misery of such poverty.
The central case for aid remains the basic recognition of human interdependence, the fulfilment to be found in belonging in solidarity and the moral imperative of responding to need. In the words of Nelson Mandela,
"Our common humanity transcends the oceans and all national boundaries … Let it never be asked of any of us —what did we do when we knew another was oppressed".
Most especially, let it never be asked of a Britain which still aspires to global leadership, as one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
The positive spirit of the British people is well demonstrated in their generous response to emergency appeals by voluntary agencies and it is confirmed in opinion polls. In a Harris poll undertaken only last Autumn, 81 per cent. of those questioned agreed that richer nations had a special responsibility to help poorer nations.
But let us not pretend that giving aid is not also in our own best material national interest. As the review makes plain, aid promotes British trade and investment by increasing prosperity and stability. It generates income for the many British firms or organisations which deliver aid or provide goods and services used in the aid programme; and of course it enhances Britain's reputation and strengthens her influence in the world.
But if we interpret self-interest in the broadest sense of the term, the case for aid is even stronger. Many of the current threats we face, such as environmental degradation, mass migration, the spread of AIDS, the increase in drug trafficking, the eruption of intra-state conflicts, international terrorism and crime, are problems which require global and not national solutions. In the face of such threats, isolationist policies make no sense at all and in each case judicious use of development assistance, coupled with a strengthened commitment to the conflict resolution and pro-active diplomacy, for which the review so rightly calls, could have a crucial role to play.
Here I must declare an interest in view of my professional work with Saferworld and my role as a trustee of International Alert. Of course, accelerated debt relief, not least multilateral, is also an imperative.
We welcome the review's suggestion that ODA's over-arching goal should be,
"to improve the quality of life and reduce poverty and suffering in poor countries".
That puts poverty reduction at the heart of the ODA's. programme.
We note that beneath this goal the review recommends a new hierarchy of aims for ODA, the first of which is,
"to encourage sound development policies, efficient markets and good government".
But if "sound development" really means unquestioning compliance with IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes, I think that that is something that we should question. Of course, adjustment is often essential —there is no doubt about it —but for millions of people in Africa and Latin America such programmes have exacerbated poverty and suffering. After a decade of adjustment, economic and human indicators in many sub-Saharan African countries are worse than they were 10 years ago. If that represents "sound development", it is difficult to see how it contributes to the overall goal of reducing poverty.
The second suggested aim in the review is,
"to help people to achieve better health, education and opportunity, particularly for women".
I would have thought that that should come first: the rest is how we make it possible. What could be more important than delivering basic social services —primary education, healthcare, access to clean water and sanitation —to people living in poverty? However, although the review was completed only four months after the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, it makes no reference to agreements signed up to at that summit, such as the 20:20 compact which was endorsed, albeit on a voluntary basis. Does the Minister accept the suggested target of 20 per cent. of development assistance to be spent on basic social services? If she does, what steps is her department taking to meet the target? Why are we still at barely half the target level?
With regard to the review's third suggested aim, which is
"to enhance productive capacity and to conserve the environment",
I simply point out that the two do not necessarily go together. It is perfectly possible to enhance productive capacity by chopping down trees, but frequently that is not very good for the environment.
The fourth aim is,
"to promote international policies for sustainable development and to enhance the effectiveness of multilateral institutions".
It is, frankly, disappointing that the review does not contain an honest evaluation of what should be the split between multilateral and bilateral aid; instead discussion is curtailed by the confines of a total budget which is shrinking at a time when the relentless increase in contributions to the European Union is putting a squeeze on the bilateral programme. Indeed, the review suggests that the ODA may be able to protect its bilateral programme only by cutting its voluntary contributions to multilateral agencies. Those proposals appear to be made on a fairly arbitrary basis with little regard to the quality of the aid provided. The review concedes that both the United Nations development programme and UNICEF are doing a reasonably good job and making a significant contribution, but then amazingly concludes that UK contributions to both agencies could be cut.
Multilateralism has a great deal in its favour. It is less likely to he tied to other questionable political or economic agendas. It avoids the disruption of competing bilateral programmes, but much of it nevertheless needs reform. How do we increase our influence for reform at the same time as withdrawing from our commitments? It is just not convincing. By contrast, conditional positive financial engagement could be a powerful lever.
The review recommends that the ODA should target 85 per cent. of bilateral aid on 20 of the poorest countries, all of which would be in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The ODA would then prepare "graduation strategies" for countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Pacific and South-East Asia, and maintain what it refers to as a meaningful aid relationship through the British Partnership Scheme.
It is true that in some parts of the world economic growth has led to rapid improvements in per capita gross national product, but the fruits of economic growth have not been evenly distributed. Brazil is now classified as an "upper middle income country", but it is still a country where 32 million people go hungry. The United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report calculates that, while southern Brazil has a human development index rating which would give it a ranking of 27th, along with Luxembourg, the north-east region of the country would score somewhere in between Bolivia (ranked only 113th) and Gabon (114th).
In the face of growing inequality, is it not simplistic to suggest that the best way to reduce poverty is simply to give money to poor countries? The net result of the review's proposal would be swingeing cuts in aid to Latin America and the Caribbean. The withdrawal of British aid from those regions would signal an end to Britain's global role in development co-operation, traditionally one of our strengths as an aid donor.
But we must be candid about what the driving force behind such cuts really is. The ODA presents them as a drive towards greater effectiveness. But we all know that they are in reality a drive towards a smaller aid budget. Last November, the total aid budget was cut by 5.4 per cent. Now, I know what the Minister will probably tell us. She will tell us that, despite this, Britain will continue to have the fifth largest aid programme in the world: true, in terms of volume; false, in terms of aid as a percentage of GNP, our national wealth. Against that far more significant measure of commitment, we ranked only 14th with little Finland in 1994.
In relation to the bilateral programme, it seems even more sophistry is on offer from the Minister and from her Government. The formulation of words in the ODA's budget press release and the Chancellor's speech are so ingenious that I hope your Lordships will indulge me by allowing me to read them out:
"In a tight public spending round, the planned allocation for bilateral aid is likely to be little changed from that set out in last year's Departmental Report".
Ah! we can all give a sigh of relief; the bilateral programme is going to be protected. Until, of course, we consult last year's departmental report and look at the planning allocations for 1996–97. These reveal that

281
bilateral aid is scheduled to fall from £1,065 million in 1995–96 to £963 million in 1996–97, a fall of £102 million or 9.6 per cent. in real terms.
The Minister will no doubt tell us that private investment is also key to development. We agree. We need far more of it. But private investment has been concentrated on a few rapidly industrialising countries. Worldwide, 80 billion US dollars were invested in developing countries in 1994, but 80 per cent. went to 10 countries (40 per cent. to China alone). Sub-Saharan Africa enjoys few benefits from private investment; in 1993 it got just 3 per cent. of such global investment.
While debt relief—not least multilateral—and private investment are vital, they can never be substitutes for aid. In paragraph 5.24 the review questions whether the current level of aid is sufficient to allow the ODA to fulfil its purpose, and that was before last November's cuts. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, aid as a percentage of GNP was 0.51 per cent. and rising. After 17 years of Conservative government, it is now down to 0.31 per cent. and falling. The review predicts that aid as a percentage of GNP will fall to 0.26 per cent. by 1997–98—and remember, that was before last year's cuts. Now it will fall even lower.
By the time this Government leave office, it seems likely that aid as a percentage of GNP will have halved during their period in office and the noble Baroness will have presided over the culmination of that halving. For such a decent and widely respected person as we all know the Minister to be, it must be a painful truth, but it is one that must be faced. Her colleagues love to have her benign countenance and genuine concern at their disposal, but repeatedly they cynically sell her short. There is now real anxiety as to whether the Government have any strategy at all for their aid programme. If they have, the sooner they bring it to the House the better.
As we look forward, I underline the undertakings given by my honourable friends Joan Lestor and George Foulkes in another place last week. The Labour Government will transform the ODA into a full department of state with its own Secretary of State to put development issues at the heart of government policy where they belong, and in the first year of government we will start to reverse the decline in aid spending. We endorse the United Nations Social Summit proposal for a 20:20 compact, with donors allocating 20 per cent. of their development assistance, and the governments of developing countries allocating 20 per cent. of their public expenditure, to basic social needs programmes.
Under Labour, all aid programmes will be audited systematically for their impact on the poor as well as on women, children and the environment. We shall introduce greater consultation and involvement of local communities in the design, implementation and evaluation of development programmes. In government we shall press for improvements to EU aid and development programmes, particularly in relation to poverty focus, participation and accountability. We shall seek better harmonisation of EU development policy
282
with the bilateral programmes of member states, and greater consistency between aid, trade, agriculture and economic reform policies of the EU.
We shall do all that, and much more besides, because of the scale of the challenge which remains, to which we have no alternative but to respond if we are to be true to the values we hold dear. We shall also do it because the cornerstone of our approach to government overall will be positive social responsibility as the means to strengthen at home and across the world the community to which we all belong. In all that, the words of John Donne will be our guide:
"No man is an island entire of itself…Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating a debate on a subject which must be of concern to many noble Lords—overseas aid, third world development, and sustainable production within a global environment. We are all aware of the noble Lord's knowledge of that sphere and work in it over the years.
After decades of increasing development aid, often mediated by political motivation and considerations, from the 1950s to the 1990s, in 1993 there was a drop in global aid of 6 per cent. Now, I read that the ODA's overseas aid is 0.29 per cent. of total GNP. An increasing share of that decreasing pie is directed towards emergency aid, and rightly so. However, one must note that the pie is not an ever-expanding pie. There are now, of course, some new claimants for the pie—Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union. There was a time when they sent aid to the developing world, but they do not do so now; and 12 per cent. of the ODA's funds go in that direction.
The UK has every right to be proud of the ODA's efforts. Although we are not in the lead position in proportion of GNP allocated to overseas aid—I understand that it is about 5 per cent. and that we are 12th behind Finland, according to the noble Lord—it is greater than that of the USA. Nevertheless, large sums are devoted to overseas aid. Although we may not be in the lead position in the amount of money or proportion of GNP allocated, we are probably in the lead position in terms of the focus of the aid, its administration, and the competence and dedication of the personnel.
My association with the ODA has been over many years in several continents, connected largely with livestock development. I make no excuse for concentrating tonight on that aspect of the subject, because of the shortage of time. Livestock development plays an especially important role in human livelihoods in the developing world and in the poorest countries. The animals do not just produce food by conversion of some of the poorest quality cellulose to high quality protein (meat and milk), alleviating the hunger and misery referred to by the noble Lord, they also provide the motive power (the draught power) to pull ploughs, to transport produce, and to do a variety of other tasks. They are especially important in the third world.

283
Animals still provide 50 per cent. of the motive energy in agriculture, despite the great developments in the internal combustion engine and the like. In Tanzania, for example, 250,000 donkeys haul 56,000 tonnes of cargo daily. It is interesting to note that the women of Tanzania prefer the donkeys while the men prefer the oxen and the cattle. There may he something to learn from that. Without such motive power in those various countries, the small farmer's ability to farm and to produce food for their families is affected seriously. It is not only obvious disease and malnutrition that is the problem, but the chronic and sub-chronic form of ill health.
Research on those animals is important. Research is needed to improve food and the draught ability of the animals because they are important for survival. It is research that one might call "downstream" or strategic. It is not the type of research that is funded by the normal research bodies in this country such as the research councils, the Wellcome Trust. It is research that must be underpinned by the ODA. If the ODA does not fund it, it is unlikely to be done. If it is not done, new developments are not brought to the attention of the developing world.
In the UK there is one institute (the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine) in Edinburgh, where the ODA has provided funding to do such work, as my noble friend the Minister is well aware. She has visited that institute on numerous occasions. The funding of that institute will decrease by 30 per cent. That will clearly have a decided effect on its ability lo undertake training and the type of research that I have described. That research may not be done.
That reduction in funding may well have a wider effect than merely a lack of research into and understanding of disease control. It will, as the noble Lord said, reduce the UK's influence overseas on livestock development. It will reduce the UK's input into trade and reform of agriculture and research. With the new wealth-producing technologies such as biotechnology, it will reduce the UK's ability to play an important role in the development of livestock and other forms of agriculture.
I am fearful that the UK will not share in such developments while other countries will. Obviously, hard decisions must be made in the future, but I trust that agriculture and livestock development will be regarded as areas of particular importance and will be, to some extent, safeguarded.
As a final comment, the director general of the FAO in celebration of the 50th anniversary of that UN organisation launched what he has called the "new green revolution". Dr. Jacques Diouf has said that he intends to:
"intervene where the needs are greatest and the agricultural sector most vulnerable".
I hope that I have sketched some of the problems. He went on to say that governments need to act with determination. I hope and trust that Her Majesty's Government will ever do so.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I read the Fundamental Expenditure Review with interest, although occasionally with some difficulty. I hope that the Minister shares some of my scepticism about current management jargon and techniques within the Civil Service. She may recall that my wife used to teach in the Civil Service College three generations of management jargon ago. It has become worse since then. I was a little involved in attempts to introduce into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a strategic objective review. I recall the then head of the FCO security department responding that the objective of his department was to prevent the outbreak of nuclear conflict throughout the world and in that it had been 100 per cent. successful during the previous year.
Therefore, I am not entirely sure that the management by objectives principles outlined in the report are exactly appropriate to overseas aid. However, I would argue that some of the statements made in Chapter 3, and in particular at paragraph 3.11, suggest that the Minister might be encouraged to argue the case for an integrated overseas budget rather than for the separation of defence, foreign policy and ODA into separate contenders. If it is the case that peace-keeping using armed forces, preventive diplomacy and aid interventions targeted in particular on institutions which are key to the functioning of civil society is precisely the way we should be going forward—and in the part of the world with which I am most concerned, the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe, that is exactly what we need—we should be thinking of aid expenditure and military expenditure under the same overall head. I venture to suggest that it might be easier to defend the ODA budget in that overall context.
When I read the motivations for aid, I was surprised to see such little attention paid to the environmental dimension both on moral grounds and as a national interest. Poor countries waste their land and their resources. What we have seen in Ethiopia, what we have seen in the reduction of forest cover in India and the whole progress of desertification in Africa demonstrates the extent to which poor countries damage their environment and therefore ours, too. I am sure that it would gain increasing popular support even in this country by stressing that dimension.
If we are talking about national interest it is also increasingly clear that overseas development assistance is important in migration terms. I have some experience of looking at man struggling through central and eastern Europe during the past three or four years. One sees desperate people from the Middle East, the Punjab and Africa trying to get into Europe. There are no jobs for many of them at home, and it is hardly surprising that illegal immigration—economic migration, as we put it—comes from the countries which have least opportunities at home.
As regards bilateral aid, I agree with the Fundamental Expenditure Review that concentration is correct in the circumstances. It gains the most impact on the countries concerned. I also agree that graduation is desirable; but I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about Brazil.

285
Brazil has an extremely inegalitarian society. The wealth of some of the diplomats one meets occasionally at conferences on overseas aid suggests that they could spare a little for the poorer people in their own country. We have a case for supporting non-governmental organisations working in north-east Brazil but solving the problems of countries which should be solving their own problems is not a high priority for our bilateral trade programme. Furthermore, I believe that the funding out of ATP is politically desirable, in particular from countries such as Malaysia for reasons which I am sure the Minister will recall. Niche funding, strengthening the kind of activities which the know-how fund as I have seen does extremely well, is precisely the way we should be going forward. There should be joint funding wherever possible both with other governments and non-governmental organisations. I have seen the European Union multilateral aid programmes and in that area the EU works extremely effectively. It is often much more cost efficient to do things together rather than country by country. EU multilateral aid to southern Africa, central America and the Mediterranean is increasingly important in terms of security and migration; and now increasingly it is of vital importance to central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Perhaps I may declare a certain interest as I work with the Open Society Foundations and am employed part-time by the Central European University. One might say that the Open Society Foundations are indirectly funded by the British Government since much of the money which George Soros put into them came out of various forms of international speculation, including some against the pound. At present we are the largest single set of foundations funding technical assistance and education and training in central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Plenty of emergency assistance is needed in those areas and much more will be needed in Bosnia, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, if and when the conflict ends, and in Moldavia now the conflict appears to be finished.
Some of those countries are extremely poor. Countries in the Caucasus and in central Asia will need a great deal of assistance if they are to make a successful transition from socialism under the Soviet Union to market economies. I was puzzled by the statement at paragraph 10.11 which states,
"The UK has neither the strongest historical associations nor size of programme in the… CEE/FSU to be very effective in influencing recipient governments, other donors or UK interest groups".
No one else has either, apart from Russia. We have as good a chance of influencing them as anyone else. What is being done through the know-how fund is extremely valuable. I support the suggestion in the review that this should all be under the ODA's overall direction as in many cases they are poor countries in severe need of development assistance. I hope that the Minister will push that through in unhappy collaboration with some of her colleagues who, I dare say, may resist.
6.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the
286
opportunity to debate this matter, which is clearly significant, not to say life giving. The first and principal justification for aid must be that we who live in a society that is relatively secure and prosperous and largely free from fear have a moral obligation to those who are not so fortunate and who are insecure, poor and afraid. I believe that that moral obligation is inescapable. It cannot be avoided. It determines in a quite fundamental way the kind of life that we seek to create, the quality of life to which we aspire and the nature of the society in which we want to live.
It will be rightly said that there are very poor people in our own communities and we should care for them too; that a growing number of people in Britain are becoming insecure; and that in certain parts of our country, many people are afraid, even physically afraid. That, too, is an issue we cannot duck. Although it is not the subject of the debate, we are called to look at it just as hard because, like the other, our response will determine the character of our society. I say that there is no difference in our duty to assist, whether those who are in acute insecurity are here or overseas. That is why, as leaders of our churches, we remain so critical of the reasoning that underpins the Asylum Bill as well as of its content.
I wish to make two main points in support of overseas aid. Other noble Lords are much more able than I to address the technical issues. I simply wish to add my voice to those who argue that aid is justified, first, by the level of need in the poorest countries and, secondly, by the evidence that it works.
One in every five human beings in the world still lives in acute poverty—that is more than 1 billion people. Nearly 800 million people, as we have heard, are still short of food and 500 million are chronically malnourished. Many millions die every year from infectious and treatable diseases such as diarrhoea, malaria and tuberculosis. In the developing world there are more than 13 million refugees.
Those are just a few statistics and it is difficult to respond feelingly to such numbers. But we have all seen from numerous television reports from various countries the acute suffering experienced by people in Rwanda, the Sudan and Angola. Those people are caught up in a violent crisis over which they have no control. We remember orphans and elderly refugees dying of hunger and exhaustion. Equally, we have seen the ordinary misery that very many poor people experience day by day as they attempt to grind out a living with virtually no resources available to help them to do so. They have no land, capital or education on which to build.
The scale and extent of poverty and need in the poorest countries which we have all seen and can all feel with a little imagination is starkly greater than in our own country. It seems to me that that is the unanswerable justification for increasing, or at the very least maintaining in real terms, the value of our overseas aid.
In addition, aid works. Too often that is forgotten. There are positive statistics, too, to set alongside those that I have given. In the past 30 years life expectancy has increased by one-third in the developing world.

287
Primary school attendance has increased by nearly two-thirds. The infant mortality rate has halved. Basic immunisation saves the lives of some 3 million children per year. Food production per capita has risen by 10 per cent. in the last decade. All that is tangible progress, measurable in lives and well being and benefiting millions living on our planet.
Of course, aid is not the only cause of that progress. Indeed, on its own aid can resolve few of the problems associated with poverty. Fair trade, education, investment, human rights and good government are among other elements which must contribute. But equally, it would be a grave mistake to think that aid can he omitted from the list of interventions that must be made to reduce poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already drawn attention to sub-Saharan Africa and the need to continue aid to an enormous degree to that particular area.
We shall continue to debate directions of aid policy and how to improve its efficiency and focus and, indeed, how our responsibilities at home should be set alongside our responsibilities abroad. But let us not forget that the fundamental issue is the obligation upon us to assist those who, through no choice of their own, have been born poor and who cannot, by any action that is open to them, improve their condition without the help of others.
Our overseas aid programme has become smaller as a result of the decisions made in the last Budget. I believe that we have become a little smaller ourselves in consequence. The £124 million that has been cut from the aid budget is not a large sum when set alongside the other expenditures that we make in this country. It amounts to three roll-over jackpots in the National Lottery. But for those who live in near or absolute poverty, the assistance that it represents is a lifeline that we should not sever. Therefore, I hope that when next year's Budget is announced, the Government will reverse their decision and restore the real value of our overseas aid.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd asked me to speak in this debate. I asked him to provide me with some up-dated information and I have been inundated. However, much of the information that I received, I now find that he has already covered in his brilliant speech.
There is no question about the challenges and the need for aid. I used to believe that trade was more important than aid. In some cases at least that is true. I see the tremendous changes that have taken place in South-East Asia. But there are other reasons for that. Except for South Africa perhaps, those countries will not be able to emerge as what are called tigers of South-East Asia.
In his Motion, the noble Lord refers to the viability of the ODA. I should like to approach that in terms of the future of the ODA. As I understand it, the difficulty is that in recent years there has been a flat plateau of money available for overseas aid. From reading the report, it seems to me that we must anticipate further cuts. But it was at the Edinburgh council meeting of
288
heads of state that the decision was made to increase the aid programme to include Asia and in particular the countries of eastern and central Europe. That is all to be welcomed. But for the ODA, with its flat budget availability, it has meant that the bilateral aid is just being contained and is now under very considerable threat.
I had a terrible thought and wondered whether we should look towards multilateral aid as the sole vehicle for distributing our aid. I reached the conclusion that bilateral aid is an essential part of multilateral aid. The knowledge and experience which the ODA has acquired over the years, plus the dedication of those who work there—and the noble Baroness herself represents that dedication—in itself contributes to the knowledge and experience of the multilateral organisations. Therefore, unless we maintain, support and develop our bilateral aid, there will be a cost in terms of our multilateral contribution. Therefore, I reject my first terrible thought. I have reached the conclusion that we must choose a blend of the two.
At what stage would the ODA cease to be a viable organisation as it is now? It is true that it is part of the Foreign Office but it is an identifiable organisation. When I became Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office, I was in the rump of the Colonial Office. I remember the anxiety, which was proven to a degree, caused by the loss of the Colonial Office experience. I remember when looking for a Governor of Hong Kong that we had nobody from the old Colonial Office who had experience of running colonies who was able to take it on. Fortunately, we found the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who was outstanding in every respect. But if we were to lose the experience, knowledge and dedication of the ODA organisation, our contribution would indeed be parlous.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to our own failure, in a sense, to support overseas aid. It is true, and we must admit it, that almost every developed country has failed, some even more disastrously than ourselves, to maintain its overseas aid contribution. The costs of any project undertaken continue to rise. Unless the budget for bilateral aid is maintained and developed, the contribution that we make will continue to be less and less effective.
I agree with some parts of the report of the review body. However, it seemed to me to be an orderly retreat from the battlefield. It was not going to be caught out; it had a plan to retreat. I do not believe that that is the way in which a Minister can win battles with the Treasury. We need to be infinitely more positive.
My noble friend may be critical of me. However, whatever contributions we make to multilateral organisations, we have to maintain the highest possible level of funding—and certainly today's level—in bilateral aid whatever the consequences as regards multilateral aid. If we see that level declining, the future of the ODA, with all its knowledge and experience, is lost.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the Lottery. If we were to take an extra percentage or two—the Treasury already take that—in order to finance overseas

289
aid, I wonder what the reaction of ordinary people would be. I have a son who collects regularly for Save the Children at railway stations. He is amazed at the money he receives from the ordinary men and women who pass through those stations. The question could be asked, "Would you agree to 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the Lottery being syphoned off without allowing the Government to reduce funding because they are gaining new money?" That money could be treated in a new way—perhaps to help organisations which act in an agency capacity for the ODA. That is one way in which one could find new finances in these rather straitened times. It is a thought that I give to the noble Baroness. I believe that noble Lords would be surprised at the reaction of the people who put their pound in the till in the hope of winning the jackpot.
6.43 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing the debate. The Fundamental Expenditure Review gives both Houses another opportunity to comment on our aid programme. It also gives me the chance to say one or two nice things about the ODA which I know it appreciates at this time of restructuring and buffeting. I should perhaps also declare an interest. Anyone who has sheltered in NGO glasshouses occasionally reinforced by government grants has to be careful not to throw too many stones.
First, I welcome the openness and co-operative spirit of the FER. It is a management plan which also expresses the ODA's commitment to a new definition of aid and new policy objectives and it shows a willingness to share those with ordinary mortals. This may be part of a new vogue for transparency but it is refreshing to those of us who remember over many years how hallowed the corridors of Victoria Street have sometimes been.
I also welcome the co-operation which takes place at a policy level between the ODA and some of the voluntary aid agencies, especially on the regional desks, but also more and more between senior officials. Preparations for last year's Beijing Summit was a good example. While other areas of government go in for public relations and print, ODA staff tend to be more concerned with getting proper practical messages over to the people who need to receive them, many of them in the voluntary sector. If anything, ODA could do more for public education, but I shall return to that later.
Unfortunately, one of the messages that the ODA has been trying to get over is about cuts. I shall not add much to what has been said about the quantity of aid except to say that it is deplorable that the Treasury has allowed the aid budget to fall so low over the years. It is not for want of trying by the Minister who has been a champion of the developing nations, as have been some Conservative Members who also deplore the cuts. But I feel sympathy with the overseas beneficiaries who have seen British aid slipping away from them. Only this week a small organisation with which I am connected in Asia received one of those letters of apology from ODA. While being grateful for the support that we have received in the past, I cannot help feeling sorry that, but
290
for Britain's own economic state, many more children overseas would be receiving education and primary healthcare.
We are told that Britain is in such a sorry state that it cannot sustain even the present bilateral aid programme which has already been cut back. Only last week the Minister of State said in a debate in another place that the Government still hold to the 0.7 per cent. for official aid. He stated:
"We are at 0.3 per cent. and diminishing … because we are ensuring that our economy is strong enough for us to achieve the target in time".
In other words Reculer, pour mieux sauter. Yet the Government continually reassure us that the economy under their guidance is strengthening all the time. We may be entering an election period, but how can they have it both ways? I believe that the Government are genuinely proud of the aid programme. The question is whether enough time really remains for them in this Parliament to stop the slide and begin the reascent. Is it possible that to make up for the money they would be giving in official aid the public would, in their wisdom, decide to give more through the voluntary sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, remarked? I know that some voluntary giving is based on that idea. But it would be a degrading experience for a government committed to doubling aid. The voluntary agencies themselves are hard pressed. Honourable Members in another place praised the work of the British NGOs. Their success suggests they deserve more support, not less, at a time of retrenchment.
I know that the Minister has given many assurances about the NGOs. She will be well aware of the research by the Overseas Development Institute published by OUP last month based on 16 case studies in India and Africa. It is the most thorough evaluation conducted into NGO development programmes, and supported by ODA for that reason. It broadly confirms that, despite the acknowledged difficulties of implementing aid, British NGOs are highly professional and effective channels of development.
I welcome the increase in the joint funding scheme. But there have also been cuts and knock-on effects in other areas of NGO programmes. I wonder whether ODA could not make new on-the-ground commitments to NGO development and contract out more of its existing programmes to NGOs, as it does more readily with emergency programmes. There is little doubt that in areas like Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, for example, where ODA is becoming heavily involved in health and education, more could be left to Indian and international NGOs which would reduce the management costs. Is there room for more collaboration here? I would welcome a response from the Minister.
As to the concentration of aid recommended in the review, it is an old game well known inside and outside the ODA which takes up staff time and, if taken too literally, can end in tears. Spending not 73 per cent. but 85 per cent. of bilateral aid in only 20 countries may be aiming too high. It is laudable to focus attention on some countries and areas of the world, but no aid policy should be devised which excludes any country or area

291
which meets the basic criteria. The most important policy is one which allows access to a deserving group in any part of the world.
I am pleased to see that the Government remain committed to women's development in the review's headline objectives. Knowing the vital importance of education, health and income-generation projects specifically designed for women, I hope that the ODA in its smaller print continues to recognise the critical role of those projects in its portfolio.
I should like to have seen some clear statement about development education in the UK—that is, the building of public awareness of our overseas aid programmes and of the more urgent needs of developing countries. That could have a much greater impact in this country. There is some urgency about it if the Government genuinely want to revive the position of aid within public expenditure. The review refers to the importance of raising the international profile of British aid, which is important, but I am not convinced that the Government are taking development education as seriously as the other political parties. I hope that that can be the subject of a debate in itself.
Finally, I note that economic reform and "good government" are at the top of ODA's list of priorities. When consulting NGOs on country strategies, I hope that ODA will also listen to their views on the sometimes crippling effects of new economic policies on the poorest sections.
In welcoming the review, I conclude with a reminder to the Government; namely, that there is strong support for overseas aid among all parties and throughout the country—not for the aid which goes into large prestige projects or even British products, which can also be important, but the aid which meets the needs of people who do not have access to cars and electricity but who desperately need proper healthcare and better access to education. If the ODA can get that message over, it will surely be a benefit to any government at the next election.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for initiating today's debate. It is both timely and necessary. The ODA's Fundamental Expenditure Review has set some alarm bells ringing. It seems sadly to me to signal something of a loss of heart. The review, coupled with the November announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a further 6 per cent. cut in the total aid budget can only heighten our concern.
I should like, first, to declare two related interests: one past and one current. Last November, I retired after some 30 years at the World Bank which, as noble Lords know, is an institution dedicated to assisting economic and social advancement in the developing world. It was a great privilege to have served in that organisation. My current and second interest to declare is the fact that, for five days a month, I assist the World Bank in strengthening its relations and joint activities with the Council of Europe and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, both of which are doing invaluable work in the
292
promotion of democratic values and institutions and respect for human rights in countries in which the World Bank itself is most active in the economic and social sectors.
I have just three points to make. The first is about perceptions of overseas aid and its potential. Noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate have mentioned, and sometimes quantified, the huge challenge of fighting global poverty. Perhaps I may quantify a little more. Over the past 30 years, incomes in countries with the richest 20 per cent. of the world's population grew nearly three times faster than in those countries with the poorest 20 per cent. and the gap is still widening. Nearly 8 million children in the developing world die each year from diseases linked to dirty water and air pollution; 50 million children are mentally or physically impaired due to inadequate nutrition; 130 million children—80 per cent. of them girls—are denied the opportunity to go to school; 140 million people are unemployed and almost I billion are underemployed to the extent that they cannot earn enough to feed their families. The terrifying prospect is that 3 billion more people will be added to the world's population in the next 40 years, of whom 90 per cent. will be born in the developing countries.
The real challenge facing aid-donor governments as they set their spending priorities can he put this way. A child born today in one of the poorest countries is more likely to be malnourished than to go to primary school and is more likely to die before the age of five than enter a secondary school. That is the challenge. So what is the response? Do we throw up our hands in horror and say that it is all beyond our means to put right and that the scale of the problems is too great? Do we talk defeatedly of pouring good money after bad? Fortunately that is the view of only a few misguided people.
However, too many people still overlook how much has already been achieved. The more conscious we are of those achievements, the more conscious we ought to be of the absurdity of permitting our aid budgets to decline as a percentage of our national wealth. Perhaps I may add to the list of achievements offered to the House a few moments ago by the right reverend Prelate. Adult literacy has risen from around 40 per cent. to nearly 70 per cent. since 1960; the share of households with access to clean water has nearly doubled; the average per capita incomes in poor countries have also doubled; indeed, in some eastern Asian nations they have quintupled. More and more developing countries have become integrated into the global economy and many have joined the ranks of what we call the emerging markets. Therefore, real progress can he measured in the fact that a child born today in the developing world is half as likely to die before the age of five as a child born a generation ago; is twice as likely to learn to read; and can expect more than twice the standard of living.
However, let us give credit where it is due. The peoples of the developing world have been the principal agents of their own progress; but, let us also remember that development assistance has played a crucial role in that progress. For example, 40 years ago, South Korea

293
was labelled as a "basket case" country which was wholly dependent on external assistance. Today it is a thriving, industrialised country with a per capita income of over 8,000 dollars, which is twice that of Mexico, well ahead of that in Greece and catching up with that of Portugal. South Korea could not have done that without concessional assistance at the time that it was needed and in sufficient quantities. We should not dismiss the possibility that what Korea has achieved can eventually happen in Africa, given the right assistance.
The second of my three points reinforces what my noble friend Lord Judd said earlier. We must not fall into the trap of believing that private capital can assume the full burden of supplying the capital needs of the developing countries. Much is made these days of the fact that private sector capital flows into the developing countries are running at about 150 billion dollars a year, which is three times as much as that from international institutions. But, as my noble friend pointed out, 80 per cent. goes to only 12 countries. Certainly private capital has a growing role to play, especially in infrastructure financing. But the private sector cannot and will not meet all the needs of the poor countries, particularly the social sectors. That is why falling aid budgets, especially concessional finance, must alarm us.
The latter brings me to my third and final point. During two of my assignments at the World Bank I came into quite close contact with Britain's development assistance programme. At the OECD I attended a number of the Development Assistance Committee reviews of the UK's aid programme. Although other member countries did not pull their punches in criticising certain aspects of Britain's aid programme, especially on aid tying—and I welcome the FER's recommendation about that—Britain usually scored quite high on the quality of its programme, if not on its quantity. If the quality is to remain a hallmark of the aid programme, I suggest that. for a start, there is an urgent need, as my noble friend said, to respect the commitment made at Copenhagen to the 20:20 compact as only 10.5 per cent. of our bilateral aid was spent on the social sectors in 1994–95.
As to quantity, I have only this to say. It cannot be a matter of much pride to the Government—or, indeed, to any of us—that Britain is so low in the league table of per capita income spent on aid, with the FBR predicting a fall to 0.26 per cent. in 1997–98—a calculation which even predates the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of further cuts.
I confess that I am not much wedded to the setting of time-bound targets with unrealistic objectives. I spent seven years at the UN in New York as the World Bank's representative and witnessed targets of every kind being set by the General Assembly with impossible timeframes and hopelessly over-ambitious objectives. Those lead only to shattered objectives and bitter recriminations.
294
I believe that we on this side of the House arc quite right to speak of a commitment by a future Labour government to begin reversing the trend in the first year in office. We shall, after all, be starting from the lowest foothills, looking up at a very high mountain.
High quantity and high quality of aid are not mutually exclusive. Past Labour Governments have proved that. A high quantity, high quality aid programme is the hallmark of a government which truly understands the meaning of global solidarity with the world's underprivileged people. The future viability of the Overseas Development Administration depends on those responsible for our aid programme being committed to its growth and not resigned to its decline.
7 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, as a new and junior Member of this House I rise with some trepidation to speak in this debate, which I regard as singularly important. I do so partly out of a sense of its importance and partly because my noble friend Lord Judd twisted my arm.
It seems almost churlish to criticise our past record with regard to overseas aid, which in some respects and at least on paper appears to be remarkable and much better than those of many other developed countries. The UK's role has been pivotal and of the utmost importance in many respects. I have always taken pride in that, and wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on her achievement, which is extraordinarily important and recognised throughout the world. I should also like to commiserate with her on the way the Treasury has cut her budget and therefore her effectiveness.
I should perhaps declare an interest in that for some years, 15 to 20 years ago, I was scientific adviser to the WHO and also to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. It is on those matters that I should like to speak.
This debate covers a crucial issue. In my view it is certainly the most important issue which has been debated since I took my seat. It is an irony that yesterday we saw a full House when we discussed sport on television, a subject which attracted everyone's attention. It is a sad reflection on our priorities that today this debate is not taken more seriously.
When we review the issues concerning the ODA we face the most serious crisis of our generation. We leave a legacy which imperils our children. That is what I want to talk about.
Above all, we have a problem of world overpopulation. It is that aspect of aid that I want to address. I should like to take India as an example, because I visit the country quite often. A year ago our gross domestic product was about 16,200 dollars per capita while in India it was 280 dollars per capita. That is a 58-fold differential. In Bombay over 1 million people live on the street. They are conceived there, they breastfeed there, they copulate there, they sleep there and they die there. Among the 10 million population of Delhi there are people who have inadequate or no electricity and inadequate water supplies.

295
In 1972 the world population was approximately 3.5 billion: in 1984 it was 4.7 billion. By the year 2000 it will be approximately 6 billion, and by the year 2025 it will be around 8 billion. Those are the best estimates that are available. In general I have found that people who work in fertility research have tended to underestimate the rise in population. Therefore, those figures are fairly conservative. Our children will inherit a world with double the present population.
The worst scenario is in the most poverty-stricken, resource depleted and undeveloped countries of southern Asia, Africa and Latin America. How can they, already bulging at the seams, cope with a two- to five-fold increase in that population? The higher the birthrate the less chance there is of economic progress.
It is not merely a matter of mass contraception. One cannot simply throw the condom, the birth control pill or sterilisation at those populations. We know very well from a great deal of research that the way to control population is by improving hygiene and education. The drive to population growth is due primarily to infant mortality. The higher the infant mortality the greater the drive to increase family size, because in a poor country one's children are one's insurance in old age. I met a woman in Bangladesh who looked 65 but was only 35. She had not had a menstrual, period since the age of 15 because she had been continually reproducing, and child after child had died. That is a common scenario. It is not an exaggeration. I also remember a man outside his hut in an Indian village who said that he was a rich man because he had eight children and would be safe in his old age.
When we look at the British experience of birth control we see that population control was not due to the condom, the contraceptive pill or Marie Stopes. None of them had the slightest effect. It was the water closet and the power of sanitation in the Industrial Revolution which achieved that.
I want to make three or four points briefly, because time is short. First, as the right reverend Prelate said, we face a moral perspective. We are not an island. This issue affects us. Basic social necessities are denied to more than 1 billion people. We in the West live at a far higher level than fellow humans elsewhere. We consume far more of the world's resources. Our prosperity, and indeed this House with its glories, has been built partly on their contribution. Our gain is effectively their loss.
My second point concerns the principle of self-interest. Conditions in the third world threaten our environment and, even more, future generations of the human race irreparably. We have global warming; consumption of essential food and mineral resources; consumption of energy; destruction of many species, plants and animals; the risk of political instability and even war; but, above all, overpopulation which brings those risks ever closer.
As has been mentioned, the other point concerning self interest is that by providing benefits to those countries, for example through the offices of the British Council and education, we gain huge invisible benefits.
296
Thirdly, other speakers have not mentioned that the cuts in our aid budget provide excuses for other countries to follow suit. Look at the United States. Her gross national product exceeds those of Japan, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Holland, Sweden and Portugal put together. The United Nations' target was 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. The EC as a whole gives 0.4 per cent.; the UK currently gives 0.31 per cent., and that is falling; and the United States gives 0.15 per cent.—half of the percentage of gross national product that we give. Governments must work together. We need to explain to other governments that this is a vital need. We need to work simultaneously and urgently on all fronts.
What is the effect of shutting off the tap? I shall take one example, immunisation. The Minister in another place said that immunisation is one of the most cost-effective means available for improving human health. That is true. However, here is a cruel irony. I remember going to a camp in India where there were five year-old children none of whom was as big as my own three year-old in physical stature. An aid worker said to me, "If we had not immunised these children they would not he alive". Are we to dump such children because we are no longer able to provide aid?
I am sorry to say this, but I feel that I must. The overseas aid budget has been cut not because of a famine in Birmingham, an outbreak of typhoid in Tyneside, or an earthquake in Edinburgh; it has been cut because the Government want to reduce taxation in order to win a general election.
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, we must find sustainable solutions to the short and long-term difficulties facing Africa. I should like to ask this evening whether it is time for a rethink on the problem and an attempt to halt the dependency on aid. On 24th January, during a debate on the proposed free trade area of the Americas, I drew attention to the principles of the 1994 Miami Summit. The Department of Trade and Industry was responding to a Motion in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. I believe that the principles are as relevant to this evening's Motion as they were then.
What lessons might be drawn from the agreed principles? Could those principles be adapted to Africa's advantage? I wonder whether I might be allowed briefly to repeat them. I said that the wide-ranging proposals are,
"intended to encompass not only the promotion of prosperity, through economic integration … but [contain] also specific measures for the eradication of poverty and discrimination through improved access to education and health care".
I continued:
"The strengthening of the role of women in political, social and economic life; the guarantee of sustainable development and conservation of the natural environment; support for democracy, migrant workers' rights, eradication of corruption, money laundering and a volunteer corps of people to tackle natural disasters, for development needs and emergencies, are also part of the package designed to integrate … the [American] hemisphere".—[Official Report, 24/1/96; col. 1052.]

297
Could not Africa be linked with the European Union in a similar way? Continuous aid is not the answer.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I was rather surprised at the brevity of the noble Viscount's speech, but one advantage of speaking late is that almost everything that needs to be said on the subject has been said. Consequently, I shall not repeat it but try to follow an interesting train of thought. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the London School of Economics on the 5th anniversary of the foundation of the Centre for Economic Performance. He made a powerful speech to the effect that an efficient economy needs good social support. He was arguing for a good welfare state as a necessary counterpart of a flexible, modern competitive economy in a globalised world. The noble Baroness should read the speech and remind the Chancellor that if he believes that for the UK perhaps he ought to believe it for the rest of the world.
One has to put the argument for aid not only on moral grounds, or that we somehow owe a debt to the poor countries, but also on the ground that the combination of efficiency and good welfare is an optimum combination. One is not sustainable without the other.
I also commiserate with the noble Baroness on having to read a document like the review which is an appalling piece of work. I do not know how anyone is paid to produce documents like it, but I presume that they are. I missed one simple proposition in the review. When in the 1950s we started on development people believed that interesting units of economic analysis were countries: rich countries and poor countries. Rich countries give money to poor countries and that is how poor countries will become rich countries. Much good development has come about, as was emphasised by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Grenfell; and the index in the human development report last year demonstrated that many countries have progressed. However, we are now at a stage where there needs to be greater differentiation in development.
I wish to put a paradox. Aid is not electorally popular. I know that my noble friend said that a Harris poll showed that X per cent. of people like aid but by and large aid is not electorally a high priority on the agenda, unlike the crown jewels of British sport. That is why there are so few people present today compared with yesterday. Our debate today will not make headlines in The Times and the Guardian tomorrow.
Why is aid not popular while on the other hand humanitarian assistance is? People have now accepted the principle that if there is an earthquake, a famine, a refugee problem, we ought to do something about it. British people, through both public money and private charity, are willing to put their hands in their pockets and do something. The reason is that it is no longer possible to sustain the idea that there are rich countries and poor countries, rich people and poor people, differentially distributed around the world. There are more poor people and fewer rich people in the poor
298
countries and more rich people than poor people in the rich countries. The British taxpayers are probably willing to give money where it is directly seen to help people. They will no longer find giving to countries X, Y and Z a sustainable proposition.
That leads us to consider that money should be increased as a proportion of GNP. I take that to be axiomatic, I do not wish to labour it. Rather than focus on the country or regional perspective, as the Fundamental Expenditure Review does, taking money out of Latin America and putting it in sub-Saharan Africa, we ought to ask where the real problems are in the world economy. They are probably not definable at a country level but certain communities and certain programmes, like clean water, immunisation or the education of women, are a priority. If there are priority areas scattered round the world, we could find out where they are and direct money to those causes. We could demonstrate to the taxpayer what we are doing and that every pound spent helps poor people. That is what people are willing to spend money on and it would enhance the effectiveness of our aid.
It is hard to see anything in the report at all, but I do not see in it a clear redirection of our development efforts in that way. We must concentrate in each country on the priority areas where aid can be effective. We must avoid areas where it will only be either neutral or positively harmful.
I have said it to the noble Baroness on other occasions. We ought to have a purchaser-provider split in aid. Governments are good purchasers of aid but not good providers. The recipient host governments are also not good providers of aid. I know that the noble Baroness does it anyway, but aid should be directed more and more through NGOs, either local or international. I should like to see a public competition such as we have in the universities for research money. People bid for projects and say: "I know a corner of Guatemala where £50,000 would make a difference". We ought to award money in that way and then the effectiveness of the aid projects could be monitored and examined. It would have more impact than saying: "Let's find the regions". That route will lead us into diplomatic nonsense. Aid will become mixed up with other foreign policy objectives, military objectives. The history of the Cold War is that if aid is blamed it is because it was mixed up with diplomatic, military and other objectives which should not have been part of it. Now, after the Cold War, we are ready to rethink the problem. The feeling is that the money of poor people here should not go to rich people there. Until that suspicion is removed, and unless we can take dramatic, direct and effective action, there will be a political problem in arguing the case for aid.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as is usual on this subject we have had a fascinating debate, admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Judd. Also as usual, the House will not be surprised if I take a slightly different tack from that of a number of other speakers. I hate the very concept of aid. I associate aid with the beggars that we see on the streets and with the concept

299
of charity—the idea of Lady Bountiful going round the serfs and handing out a few groats here and there to the peasants. Expressed in that way, I suspect that the vast majority of people in this country would also hate it.
An examination of the experience of our own country might give us some inkling of how we might develop. There are two problems. One is the lack of volume of aid; and as we heard from a number of speakers it is being reduced. The other is that aid is inefficiently distributed. There are national governments around the world spending aid money; there is a whole panoply of NGOs spending money. With all those organisations each contributing a little to the pot, how efficiently will the money be spent? I repeat: there is an absolute lack of volume.
The example I intended to give of this country and the development of our own society related to the position of old people at the turn of the century. There was no pension provision. The relatively well-off would be able to make savings in order to keep themselves in their old age. But for the vast majority of working people, once they ceased to earn their own living, they were destitute; and there were various mechanisms available to alleviate that destitution—whether in the form of charity from the lady of the manor or the workhouse. Again, there were effectively two problems: first, the lack of amount of provision; secondly, it was inefficiently distributed.
As a result of popular demand—pressure from trade unions, friendly societies and the Churches—the situation was revolutionised by the advent of the old-age pension. It was hailed as Lloyd George's achievement. However, from the background to its introduction we see that he responded to popular pressure. There was an amazing popular campaign to ensure the provision of decent conditions for those who could no longer provide for themselves. I hope that such an example might develop out of aid; out of the charitable context.
After the war, popular feeling was translated into the 0.7 per cent. of GDP that was available for disbursement to poorer countries. I do not think any other country has achieved that, and this country is now going backwards. A rather similar analogy might be that of rich people being livid on receipt of an income demand—for that is effectively what it is—and those rich people turning round and saying, "I don't really want to pay all that money in income tax. I'll only pay a bit of it". If, overtly, we had that situation in this country, there would quite rightly be popular outrage. (The fact that it goes on at the moment, with income tax for the very rich almost a voluntary matter, is another subject for debate.) That is effectively the situation now on a world scale.
If we could rekindle that popular consensus and demand an agreement that rich countries should pay a proper amount of income tax, perhaps we could develop a mechanism for the disbursement of that "world taxation" on a sensible and rational basis. In that way old-age pensions could be paid to people in poorer countries who at present do not receive an old-age pension; unemployment benefit could be paid to people in poorer countries who are unemployed.
300
That is only the revenue side. If we examine the capital side, we see the example of Joseph Chamberlain, the Conservative city father of Birmingham, who engaged in municipal enterprise. His is not the only example. Municipalities up and down the country built the capital infrastructure, the sewerage and water systems for instance that provide the basis for our very high standard of living in this country even today. Investment was made for the community by the community over a 100 years ago. It still pays dividends today.
We might think of the world as a global village. Our neighbours, our parents, or our sons and daughters may travel around the world. Why should they not have decent water and roads wherever they go? If they live there for a period, why should they not have decent housing? Why should we effectively penalise ourselves by not investing in the kind of capital infrastructure that provides the very basis of the civilisation that we enjoy? Why should we not expect such an infrastructure to be in place anywhere in the world that we happen to be?
I hope that my brief remarks will contribute to the debate. I hope that we can find a way of effectively getting rid of aid.
7.27 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing a debate on this subject. I do not intend to delay the House very long, but it would be peculiar if I did not make a few observations based on my experience of ODA. I spent most of last year running an NGO called British Direct Aid in Rwanda as an implementing partner of the UNHCR. That logistic operation was originally mounted in August 1994, immediately after the end of the devastating war. To that extent, I have a past interest to declare.
Looking through our files, it is obvious to me that ODA was fundamental in providing the finance that facilitated deployment in a matter of two or three weeks from start to finish. Fortunately, ODA understands how important logistics are to a large aid operation. When I arrived in theatre in January 1995 ODA was one of the most talked about and respected organisations in the region. According to some analyses of aid donation I have seen, ODA is second only to the EU itself in terms of the size of contribution. But it is to the speed and efficiency with which ODA operates that I pay tribute.
Sometimes funding is not forthcoming. That may be due to the budgetary problems we are discussing tonight. On the other hand, the proposed project may not be appropriate to the policy laid down by the Minister. But the point is that ODA will straightaway say that it is sorry but cannot help.
Some noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the problem of concentration of effort in certain countries. But the advantage of concentration of effort is that significant progress can be made in the countries where ODA is active. If the effort is spread thinly to many countries, the result may be negligible. Even worse is the risk of serious errors owing to lack of knowledge of the recipient country.

301
I appreciate that my comments and experience relate to emergency aid rather than development aid. It would be nice if the need for emergency aid could be reduced, especially that due to war. As to the matters in question, I can do no more than say how valuable is ODA's contribution to development aid and disaster relief. Whether anyone can do better than the noble Baroness and her department remains to be seen.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating the debate, and the Minister for being present. I must admit that the noble Lord's passionate speech dredged up some of the only lines of Shakespeare I know:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends".
That line will strike a chord with most noble Lords present. I especially welcome back the Minister from her trips to Africa. She has undertaken extremely valuable work in Sierra Leone and Tanzania. Her efforts on good governance show the leading role she takes in that area. On a personal note, I hope that she did not have to take Lariam while she was there. It has been hitting the papers recently. When I monitored the elections in Tanzania, I was put on Lariam and it did have psychological side-effects. I became incredibly paranoid about malaria, though perhaps I was not so badly affected as another election monitor who passed out during a meal. I have a feeling that the effects were still with me when the debate began. I became ODA spokesman for the Liberal Democrats over two years ago and I wondered whether there has been a debate in which anything other than aid cuts has been debated, having done a little research, I find that I am not paranoid since every debate has touched on that issue.
The Fundamental Expenditure Review has to be looked at in its proper context. It is a framework for decline in the operational capacity of the ODA. I realise that the review was written before the cuts took place. However, it will be the guiding force under which the cuts are implemented. I shall not dwell on the nature of the cuts. Many noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate covered the issue comprehensively. We all understand the effects of the cuts. I wish to look at some specific points raised by the review itself.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace— I welcome him to our debates on aid— pointed out, one of the most depressing facts is that the review is such a weighty document. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I would not completely write it off. In such a large document there are bound to be some points with which one agrees. I shall pick out the positive points. I believe there are some.
The goal of improving the quality of life and reducing poverty and suffering in poor countries has to be one of the highlights of the document. I personally feel that the ODA is most serious in putting as its chief objective poverty reduction. Another positive aspect is that the review recommends that the Overseas Development Administration should take on a wider role in development policy, influencing other Whitehall
302
departments such as the Treasury and DTI. I was rather interested in that because I do not see how anyone can influence the Treasury.
I return to a point raised earlier about the use of the military in emergency relief. I am taking part in discussions on the Reserve Forces Bill. Will the Minister give some indication of how she sees an increased role for the military and the expense involved as against use of non-governmental organisations.
The review recommends that the United Kingdom should contribute to the untying of aid by making a unilateral statement in a multilateral forum. I look forward to that statement. Many noble Lords have dwelt on the role of NGOs. The review expresses the view that the NGOs should be consulted in drawing up this country's strategy plans. I thoroughly agree with that, especially when looking at some of the excellent work done by many NGOs in Africa. The section of the review on the joint funding scheme makes clear that the ODA recognises NGOs not just as a contractor but as a partner in development. The idea of continuing to adopt a hands-off approach, minimising its interference in co-funded projects should be looked at carefully.
There are areas in which I do not agree with the review. The view that the best form of expenditure is that pursued through economic liberalisation is a double-edged sword. Many noble Lords have studied the effect of structural adjustment programmes and trade liberalisation without proper thought to the social safety net. They will realise that although it is an aim that we should try to achieve, it is not without its dangers.
Another area which I feel is not adequately examined is the balance between multilateral and bilateral aid. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke about the need to maintain the bilateral budget. The proposed cuts in voluntary contributions to UN agencies should not be arbitrary. They should be examined very carefully. There should be cuts only in institutions which do not produce the best results.
I am surprised, like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the 20:20 compact agreed at Copenhagen was not included in the review. I am also disappointed to see the separate commitment to women dropped as an aim, considering the recent Beijing Conference. As 80 per cent. of displaced persons and refugees are women and children, that can perhaps be reinstated as one of the major objectives.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, the aim of increasing productivity and conserving the environment has an appeal. Both concepts were put into the same sentence to save on the number of objectives. Productivity and the environment do not usually sit hand in hand. I realise that by protecting the environment one would have to look carefully at the major cause of destruction— usually the growth in an economy. However, I have a feeling that they could have been separated.
The review concentrates on 20 countries to which 85 per cent. of our bilateral budget is directed. We must give most money to the poorest countries. The Minister will be looking carefully at how to protect the most valuable projects in other countries, especially to enable

303
us to meet our commitments to the environment and family planning. But if we go too far down that line we may end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The idea that national interests have a large role to play in relation to aid is realistic. I agree that aid should be higher up the political agenda and that not to recognise the role of the ODA in promoting Britain abroad would be a mistake. Some noble Lords mentioned the private investor. One of the main problems with private investment is that without a government body such as the ODA taking a lead role and making sure that the environment is safe for private investors they will be thin on the ground. Considering that national interest is one of the priorities, the cuts in the British Council, which may destroy that institution, are puzzling. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the British Council will be protected.
The debate has shown that there is a degree of interest in aid and that the ODA has a role to play. I hope that in the future, when and if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, can come up with the money to increase the aid budget, I shall be able to stand up and shout that for once the ODA contribution is not being cut.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd tabled this debate to draw attention to the ODA's Fundamental Expenditure Review and the further reduction in its budget arising from the November Budget. The Fundamental Expenditure Review tries hard, as other noble Lords pointed out, to accomplish a difficult task; that is, to both justify and argue the case for ODA's existence and at the same time cut its coat to fit its increasingly skimpy bolt of cloth.
It is a worthy, though wordy document and is full of details. There are over 200 acronyms in the glossary. I was surprised to find that I knew what 58 stood for. Above all disciplines, overseas development is riddled with acronyms. Possibly somebody will be able to explain to me what "cascading and iteration" means in terms of running an organisation.
It is interesting to read, on page 25, in regard to the right level of the aid budget,
"It is, however, questionable whether the present level is high enough to meet the Government's targets, particularly in maintaining the share of aid going through bilateral channels and in continuing to be seen to shoulder"—
"to be seen" rather than just "to shoulder"—
"our share of the global burden".
I suggest that the word "questionable" in "Yes, Minister" language is a powerful expression of opinion from within a government department. The document states clearly both the moral and national interest cases for the continuation of a substantial aid programme. It says,
"There is no intrinsic conflict between the moral and national interest motivations",
but that,
"For all developed country governments, the moral motivation was probably stronger twenty to thirty years ago than today".
304
That is possibly true. There was a more democratic feel to the governments of the world just after 1945 and in the past 20 years things have become a little more selfish. That may be true of governments, but I do not believe it is true of people.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Harris Poll last autumn showing that 79 per cent. of people felt that the aid budget should be increased or at least not reduced. Perhaps in contradiction to my noble friend Lord Desai I believe that there are votes in development aid and especially if they target the poorest people in the world. This is perhaps not the place to examine the administrative changes advocated by the FER in great detail. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, there is a subtle policy shift to overall development, especially economic reforms, rather than the main focus being on poverty reduction. That seems to indicate support for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank's structural adjustment programmes which, as the noble Baroness knows full well, have had the effect in many countries of increasing poverty. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, they are a double-edged weapon.
I am aware that the World Bank says that it is trying to avoid the worst aspects of structural adjustment. We await evidence of that in the future and I shall be delighted to see more evidence of World Bank loans to support human investment and the social sector.
While talking about the World Bank, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell us the Government's plans for the next IDA replenishment. Are we following the lead of the United States? It severely cut its contributions to the last, 10th, replenishment. Or are we, together with other countries, going to make good the deficit? Labour, if elected, will improve the links between Parliament and our representatives in the hank. There will be opportunities in both Houses at least annually to debate the workings of the bank. At present, I suggest that the bank is too remote from government and from Parliament.
What else does Labour propose for ODA? My noble friend and other noble Lords have stated clearly that in the first year of office a Labour Government will start to reverse the decline in overseas expenditure; we will try to ensure that aid is truly directed to the poorest in any country. We are unhappy about the plan in the Fundamental Expenditure Review to concentrate 85 per cent. of aid on 20 countries. There are poor people in all societies and one of the features of the economy as it has developed in all countries under the current monetarist market approach over the past 15 years, is that inequalities both between and within countries have widened.
Aid must surely be targeted at people; it must invest in human capital. That means, as many noble Lords have pointed out, clean water; sewage systems for cities; schools for all, particularly girls; training for employment opportunities; loans for small businesses and farmers; and help for primary and secondary health care and family planning. Although my noble friend Lord Winston rightly said that this depends on economic development and education, there is still a need for modern contraceptive supplies.

305
The Government are very much to be congratulated on expanding the joint funding scheme, in which NGOs close to the ground are supported in their work. The noble Baroness herself took a special part in that. That should be continued. It is efficient and less likely to lead to a misuse of funds, even though there have been some slightly unwelcome stories recently. It is surely wrong, as other noble Lords have said, to cut our aid to the multilateral agencies which have a discretionary contribution, especially if they are doing very good work. Private financial flows must be used if we can possibly harness them to human, social investment. But I should like to see more of this before I believe we can rely on it in any big way. There is very little private finance going to sub-Saharan Africa. There is a huge need for development assistance there before private flows start to come in. At present more is going out from Africa in debt repayment than new private investment is coming in.
In the minute that is left to me I cannot give more than a brief indication of how Labour will change the Overseas Development Administration. We shall be developing and setting out in detail our agenda over the next few months. But it is certain, as my noble friend pointed out, that we shall transform the ODA into a full Department of State again, with a ministerial seat in the Cabinet, where we should very much have liked to have seen the noble Baroness during the past few years.
Rebuilding Britain's aid programme will be an uphill, though very rewarding, task after the decline of the past 16 years. By allowing this decline the Government have failed to play as full a part as they should in the biggest task in the world today— to lift a fifth to a quarter of the world's population out of grinding, degrading poverty. By not fully engaging in that task— and we have special skills there, as many noble Lords have pointed out, going unused— we have shot ourselves in the foot by allowing environmental degradation, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested, by failing to develop export markets and by failing to reduce the flows of millions of refugees and economic migrants.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, this has been an excellent opportunity for a debate on the aid programme and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for providing the occasion. I noted the noble Lord's wording in the Labour Party's Motion. I also noted carefully everything he said today, much of which we have heard before. I have no doubt that we shall probably hear it again. I have no doubt, too, that he will continue to approach, with his colleagues, the whole question of aid in a sympathetic manner but lacking a certain management reality— something of which the Minister in charge always has to be conscious. I hope that whatever happens to the aid budget it will grow. I shall come back to that point. But I also tell the noble Lord that it needs a good deal of managing when one is operational in more than 160 countries, when one is working with more than 150 NGOs, and
306
when one is seeking to get the best value for money not only for the British taxpayer, whose money one is using, but also for all the recipients who so desperately need our help.
Some of the remarks in the debate have been almost simplistic. However, I am not here to attack the noble Lord. I shall try to respond to the debate. Perhaps I may assure him right at the beginning that there is not and never was any doubt about the future viability of the aid programme or of the department. That is absolute nonsense. Of course I should like to have seen the department with a full seat in the Cabinet. But he knows that I have had from three successive Secretaries of State nothing but support. It is true that we have our battles with the Treasury, and so, should he ever be in government, will he. It will not be so easy to do the things he and his colleague in the Commons have been promising tonight. He will find out perhaps, but I hope not too soon, just what a task it is to manage the whole of this area.
What is necessary in all management is from time to time to refocus our efforts and to review what we do and how we do it. We did it in 1990–91. We carried out a similar and important review in 1995–96. I believe that is right and proper because of the need to maintain value for money and to keep up with the changing development patterns around the world. We have to note what others are doing— the countries themselves which have been the recipients as well as the other donors. We have to try to work in partnership so that the total given worldwide is far more than the sum of the parts.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that while this has been an interesting debate the FER is a much deeper thing than I think he understands. But I shall be happy to talk to him further about the FER and about the senior management review because I think that is worth doing. I also know how much I owe to the officials in the department. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and to many other noble Lords for their kind comments about the department's work and about me personally. It carries out excellent work.
I turn now to the Fundamental Expenditure Review. It was thorough; it was certainly wide-ranging; and it involved consultation with many of our principal partners. We discussed with enormous numbers of people how aid should be delivered. We discussed the best ways of doing things before the report was written. The report was deposited in the Library of the House back in December. Copies are available from the ODA for anyone who wants to read it in detail—or perhaps I should say reread it. We have also received many comments over recent weeks which are most welcome. Last month the Foreign Secretary and I held useful discussions with chief executives of the major development non-governmental organisations. Today I should like to take this opportunity to set out some of our responses to the key recommendations.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that this is not a framework for decline. This is a management tool. While the noble Lord,

307
Lord Wallace of Saltaire, may be tired of the changing language of management review, I think he knows that in the real world it has to go on. Management is about priorities. That is why we have narrowed down to four key aims in the FER. The most important first confirmation from the FER was the continuing need for the UK to provide substantial flows of concessional aid. It also recommended that the ODA should retain responsibility for bilateral and multilateral aid. I might have thrown out the FER if it had not done so. But we strongly agree with both, recommendations because they underpin the Government's commitment to remain a major donor.
It was important that the review should recommend the clarification of the purpose of the aid programme by a better definition of its basic purpose and aims. That is why we have agreed with the revised mission statement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred supportively. The ODA's overriding purpose is to improve the quality of life for people in poorer countries by continuing our contribution to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
I shall not go through the four subsidiary aims except to say this. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, seemed to think that there was some specific meaning that the second aim to help people to achieve better education and health and to widen opportunities, particularly for women, should be second in the list. There is no particular order— sound development, efficient markets and good government are essential if any of these countries are going to provide all the things that they need for their people.
The full mission statement is in the departmental report which will be published next month. I believe that that will advance understanding of what we are trying to do. I shall answer a Parliamentary Question, which will be repeated in another place, covering the Government's response to any comments that have been received on the FER.
One of the key recommendations of the FER was that the ODA's country programme resources should be more concentrated in order to enhance impact. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, supported that. We certainly agree that that must happen and more clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, seemed to be rather against the mechanism that we use for managing country programmes. By concentrating a larger proportion of the bilateral resources on the countries which need them most, I hope that we can be more effective than we are today because in that way we can have more impact. But to do that effectively we have to work on a country-by-country basis simply as a tool of managing the resources.
It is right, too, that wider national interests should be taken account of. But I can assure your Lordships that there will be no sudden changes. I believe that many of your Lordships know already that the 20 largest recipients accounted for about 69 per cent. of the planned country programme expenditure in the last financial year and on current plans we expect that proportion to increase to about 73 per cent. by 1998–99. This is a gradual process, but an important one because it is there to enhance the effectiveness of all we do.
308
The list of the largest recipients may not be exactly the same from year to year, but the concentration on the poorer countries in Africa and Asia and in particular the Commonwealth ones, will continue. The key decision criteria for achieving this further concentration will be the relative need for aid, our capacity to deliver it effectively and efficiently, whether directly ourselves or through NGOs or other means. We must be able to have a real development impact and to influence others in the development community to work likewise. The Commonwealth countries will certainly he helped by this. The last two criteria are particularly relevant, including our British national interest, given our shared experience and our Commonwealth ties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has often said, we have always regarded our Commonwealth connections to be an asset. We certainly have a significant influence and interest in the countries that I have just seen—Tanzania, Swaziland and South Africa. That significant influence, interest and investment in their futures will continue.
At the same time as avoiding disruptive changes to our development assistance, we must sharpen our focus on the activities which contribute directly to achieving the aims. The Fundamental Expenditure Review made a number of sensible recommendations which will enhance the strategic planning process. Better corporate and business planning has already begun. We are strengthening the important links in all cases between the objectives and the resources of all kinds that we can use to achieve them. We are making an increasing contribution through multilateral aid. It is a fact of life that in a world where regional groups are becoming ever more common, whether they be recipient groups or donor groups, we must improve the multilateral performance, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. I welcome the fact that the FER recommended strengthening our role in the multilateral organisations; improving linkages with our bilateral aid and securing better value.
Perhaps I may say something here about the multilateral-bilateral split. Government policy aims to achieve a satisfactory balance between bilateral and multilateral aid, both of which have their place. Until recently about 40 per cent. of the total resources was spent multilaterally. The exact figure varies from year to year. Because of the increase in funds being put through the European Union, in the last full financial year about 50 per cent. was spent multilaterally and 50 per cent. bilaterally. That process will indeed continue because in the current financial year I believe that we shall end up with multilateral contributions exceeding bilateral contributions for the first time.
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to others who have mentioned this issue. Because we are putting more aid through the European Union that does not mean that it is necessarily less effective. We have to work to make it more effective and that is exactly what we are doing by seconding members of ODA to the European Union to work on their programmes; by encouraging the European Union to use British NGOs who have a first-class reputation in the delivery of aid,

309
and by influencing the policy discussions of the working groups as regards how the aid is spent through the European Union.
Many believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that bilateral aid seems to be more effective than multilateral aid. That depends on the form of assistance and the objectives. It is true that we can obviously more closely target aid and that is good for Britain because that aid is identified as British. But there are useful roles for the multilateral agencies to co-ordinate assistance. Sometimes they can exercise more leverage in support of an important objective such as economic reform.
That brings me to say a special word about the World Bank. Since Jim Wolfensohn took over as president last June, he made clear his intention to carry forward the reorientation of the bank. I believe that is very important because a large amount of donor resources go through the bank. In particular he has endorsed poverty reduction as the bank's overriding objective and indeed that is the very reason for its existence. That is absolutely right. He has always underlined that he has much to learn about the bank, its mission, and its clients. So it was no accident that his first visit in an intensive programme was to Africa whose development challenges he considers to be the bank's highest priority. The bank's performance will be judged by the impact of the work in its field. We are firmly committed to working with Jim Wolfensohn on this agenda.
I was extremely interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, when he spoke of the work that the bank has done and the role that concessional assistance has played. How right he was to refer to a graduation strategy which has been advanced by the work of the World Bank. He particularly mentioned Korea.
I believe that it is very important to realise that the World Bank is only as operational as the extent of its resources. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the replenishment of IDA, he is well aware that IDA 11 discussions are being conducted under very difficult circumstances. That is predominantly because of US budgetary constraints, their arrears to IDA 10 and the uncertainties about their intentions for IDA 11. We have no doubt that IDA must be provided with the resources to continue its leadership role in support of poverty reduction, sound economic management and sustainable development. We are working actively with other donors to maintain a strong IDA and to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the current replenishment negotiations. We cannot predict the shape of the final package but I believe that we can play a very important role. Next month I shall be going to talk with the World Bank again about how we can strengthen its effectiveness as well as get the best possible deal out of what is available.
We have accepted most of the FER recommendations. We shall continue to have the lead policy and financial responsibility for those multilateral programmes which are a charge to the aid budget. We shall reinforce our efforts to improve the quality and focus of programmes managed by multilateral organisations. That will include
310
not only working with the multilateral agencies, but also reforming UN agencies as well as continuing work in Brussels.
I have made it absolutely clear that UK membership of UN agencies will be assessed in the light of progress with reform. We shall continue to press for reforms, but we shall also continue to fund the good agencies, such as UNICEF and many others which have done such fundamental work. I have been much saddened by the false comments that have been made about our funding of the worthwhile UN agencies, the funding of which we are not cutting, but are maintaining and trying to enhance where they have programmes which fit in with the priorities that we have set.
Many recommendations in the FER concern internal management processes. I do not have the time to go into them tonight, except to say that all have a common purpose: to enhance the effectiveness of the ODA, to increase its impact and to obtain better value for money. The majority have already been accepted and are already being implemented. They are a continuum of what we were doing before.
Much has been said about aid volume, as well as aid targeting. I realise the anxiety that is shared on all sides of the House that this is the first year in which there has been a reduction, but we remain the fifth largest donor in the world and have a better record of delivery than many others who spend much more money but far less effectively. After this year the overall budget will increase by £47 million to £2.2 billion in 1997–98 and by another £69 million to almost £2.3 billion in 1998–99. Our twin goals remain the retention of a substantial and effective programme and an even more effective British role in ensuring that multilateral aid is well spent.
We are not alone in having had to consider the restraints on public expenditure. There is no G7 donor which is not finding it difficult to move towards the targets that it would like to meet. Our contribution is still more than the average for all donors in the OECD. We still maintain that the UN target of 0.7 per cent. is the correct target, but we cannot set down the timetable for meeting it. If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is ever in government, I think that he will find it difficult to change the pattern which has now evolved in many countries, not just our own. The noble Lord may already know that Italy's aid expenditure fell by 36 per cent. last year; ours rose last year. Canada is reducing its aid by over 20 per cent. The United States, which still provides only 0.15 per cent. of its GNP as aid compared with our 0.31 per cent., is reducing its programme still further. We have avoided cuts of similar magnitude but we have to get even better value out of what we have because volume is not the only issue.
When the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about the further reductions in the ODA budget, I wondered whether he had considered the year-by-year figures since 1987 which show that it has been growing slowly. I believe that the noble Lord overlooked the fact that our reduction in this year's budget is entirely due to the reduced estimates for EC spending— that has been the case for the majority of the reduction.

311
I must make several other comments. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about NGOs. We have made it a policy over recent years to ensure that the NGO method of delivery should be enhanced wherever it is practical to do so. The funding of NGOs has risen from £65 million in 1989–90 to £185 million in the last full financial year. The joint funding scheme will receive another rise in the next financial year which will help it in its work. Our support to the volunteer-sending agencies has also increased substantially over recent years. We intend to continue to work through the NGOs where they best deliver the programmes to which we are committed.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me about the 20:20 target because he was concerned about social spending and the poverty focus. I think that I told him at the time that the conclusion of the social summit was accepted by us all, but the conclusion left open whether any developing country and donor might wish to draw up a specific programme. We need to have mutual commitment for any of this to work. I am not aware of any case in which we have been asked by a recipient for a commitment since the summit because in many cases we are spending more than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, talked about spending on basic needs. It is true that if you ignore all emergency aid, which is absolutely vital to such countries, you end up with 10.4 per cent. of our budget being spent on basic needs. However, the real proportion is 27.1 per cent. when one includes sanitation and all the things that we have done to benefit such countries, not only in emergencies, but in work that continues after an emergency. Therefore, the true figure is much higher than that quoted.
We shall continue to work on population matters. I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, which was one of the most effective and moving speeches of the debate. I am glad to tell your Lordships tonight that although in July 1994 I felt that we could commit only about £100 million for population and reproductive health activities in 1994–95 and have about 50 new projects, we have achieved £184 million being committed to that work with 112 new projects being supported. The noble Lord will thus see that I have total sympathy with what he was saying about family planning and how it can help the lives of not only women, but the whole family and society.
Other points have been made concerning UN organisations. I touched on them briefly just now and said that we would ensure that the good agencies continue to be funded. We have not made any decision to leave any UN agency. In fact, we have just announced our 1996 contribution to UNDP and UNICEF. Those programmes will not be cut, but will be maintained at a similar level to last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, commented on the British Council. In my absence my noble friend Lord Chesham answered a debate on that a few days ago. We have no intention of doing to the British Council all the things that have been threatened, but it is right that the British Council should not he reliant solely on the taxpayer. At a time of resource constraint,
312
it is inevitable that reductions must apply to all. We believe that they can be sensibly managed and the Secretary of State has been talking today with the British Council about how they can be managed.
I have been asked a number of other questions about how the ODA will influence the DTI and the Treasury. A debate like this helps particularly when it is well-focused. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said— others have said this on many occasionsߞwe need to improve development education. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also referred to that. Development education among all sectors of the community is very necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the Reserve Forces Bill. I cannot go into that in detail, but as an honorary colonel I know that there is a very real TA role in terms of developing the work of the forces with the relief organisations. I cannot speak too highly of the Royal Logistic Corps, 9 Supply Regiment, which was operational in Angola at the beginning of the deployment last summer. Its work has been much heralded by the UN as a model of its kind. There will be more such work. There is no question about the value of military expertise in certain relief situations. The Reserve Forces Bill will give access to that expertise, which is a very good thing.
I have described the quality of our bilateral programme and our increased efforts to ensure that multilateral aid is well co-ordinated. I share the wish for greater spending on long-term development. I have already put in train the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made about the possible use of lottery funds in the future.
I am glad that there is widespread support in all parts of the House for a strong aid programme that makes a real contribution toward reducing poverty in the poorest countries, and that aid should go to the countries where it can do the most good. Of course it is not perfect. No programme is. I have sought to respond constructively to the debate, but I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that criticism without costed alternatives is not helpful, just as in another place last week the Opposition failed to give any real detail of how they will achieve all their worthy aims. It is well acknowledged here that we do a good job with what we have. We intend to do an even better job in the future.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I am sure that all who have participated would also want to thank those responsible for drafting the Fundamental Expenditure Review, which was an extremely interesting and stimulating document. We may not have agreed with everything in it, but it has given us a great deal of food for thought. We look forward to the Government's response next month, and to continuing the debate.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness— she knows this— that I am second to none in my admiration for her and her commitment, but she can do better than come to this House and lecture us on the need for responsibility towards management when her officials arc burning the

313
midnight oil, grappling all the time with a reducing budget and increased commitments, as indeed the review itself has underlined. She knows that, and it is not good enough for her to protest that somehow the efficiency of her department removes any responsibility for the vicious cuts that are being made in the programme.
In concluding the debate, perhaps I may make three observations. First, what has come clearly from the debate is that we need to look more at the balance between bilateral and multilateral programmes. It is not an issue of either or, but the balance. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd said so powerfully, we need the bilateral programme as the basis of experience to contribute well into the multilateral programme.
Another point which came out strongly in the debate is that we must decide— with great respect, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was extremely interesting, but there is a difference between poor countries and poverty— whether or not the aid programme is about poverty; because if it is about poverty, that introduces some new demands which are not necessarily covered by a country-oriented approach. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that the speech on population by my noble friend Lord Winston, was tremendously important. But the Minister knows—she heard his arguments—that if population is to be tackled effectively, it is in the context of effective economic and social development. Therefore a reducing aid programme undermines the battle for population strategy itself.
It has been a great debate. I thank all who participated. At this hour, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Community Representation Bill [H.L.]
8.22 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should declare an interest as the High Steward of Kidderminster, an office which has no remuneration but, nevertheless, involves an interest in one context which of course is the Charter Trustee Towns with which the Bill is concerned.
The hour is late. We have had two substantial debates, and so I am sure it will be the wish of your Lordships to have as speedy, satisfactory, and well-informed a debate as we are now focusing no longer on the scene abroad but on England.
This short Bill, which consists of only two clauses and a citation, is, potentially at least, a means of improving the quality of democratic local government which is threatened by the proliferation of ever larger unitary authorities. I shall open my brief remarks with a philosophical prologue: if the first duty of government is to govern, coupled with it is a second duty to seek to
314
reconcile the range of conflicting interests. It is here that we should review the context of the reform of local government for quite a long period.
To achieve some perspective, perhaps I may invite noble Lords to retrace the events of local government reform back to May 1966 when the late Lord Redcliffe-Maud was appointed chairman of the Royal Commission. In October of that year, the County Councils' Association submitted its written evidence which contained the following proposal:
"A local authority should not be so large that its members lose the sense of participation in community affairs; in other words, the concept of democracy must continue to be one of the primary considerations in the examination of local government organisation and the closest possible links must be preserved between the electorate and the authority".
I read that in 1966 when I was both a parish councillor and a Member of your Lordships' House. I re-read it the other day when I returned to the archives to see how things stood. That sentence encapsulates better than almost anything I could find what this is about.
The commission readily acknowledge the need for local councils. In the short version of the report (Cmnd. 4039) it tells us:
"Our first firm conclusion was that any new pattern of democratic government must include elected 'local councils', not to provide services, but to promote and watch over the particular interests of communities in city, town, and village throughout England".
The main report (Cmnd. 4040) went further. At paragraph 320 it continued:
"The local council, elected for each town and parish, and charged with responsibility for making known the views and interests of its people, will be an essential link between the public and the main authority. The authority must consult the local council on any matter of importance to the council's area, as some county councils now consult district and parish councils. There must he consultation not only on the preparation of development plans and major proposals for new development, where it should be axiomatic that no decision is ever made until the local council's views have been considered".
Having reported so fully and emphatically on the need for local councils in the reformed structure of local government in 1969, there was a curious turn of events. Those familiar with the history of what took place will remember a series of events. Perhaps I may pass the signposts swiftly and indicate what they were. There was of course the Derek Senior minority report— an important document— to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. There was the Baines Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the minority report and the main report. There was the Secretary of State's own compromise known as the Walker compromise which led to the Local Government Bill 1972 which later became the Act.
Section 246 of that Act established one of the most anomalous of bodies— a body to which in the town of Kidderminster I belong— the Charter Trustee Towns. Where the area of a city or borough did not become a parish, it became instead a body corporate by the name of Charter Trustees of the city or town, as the case may be. Noble Lords will appreciate that charter trustees have no local government functions. Their sole purpose is annually to elect a mayor and deputy mayor. They exist within the context of the appointment of the

315
mayoralty and the upholding of civic traditions. In many cases such mayoralties have ancient foundations, having been established for over 700 years.
There are 22 charter trustee bodies which were set up in 1974, and three such towns are now constituted as new parishes following the recent local government review. On the whole—I stress this—requests for such representation have been refused. A classic example is Salisbury.
Often the absence of a parish council contrasts with a neighbouring parished community in a different local government district. Such comparisons perpetuate an anomalous principle and deny equality of representation. Thirty-six metropolitan districts are all unparished. Non-metropolitan areas include such celebrated and well-known towns as the city of Plymouth, with a population of 252,000; the city of Bristol, with a population of 374,000; and the city of Derby, with a population of 217,000. That bears heavily on the argument behind the Bill. All are large ancient boroughs and towns of considerable foundation and history and proud, long traditions which are seeking parishing or parish representation.
The Bill has two aims. The first is to provide a fair, democratic and accountable way for unparished urban communities to gain parity with their rural neighbours, or their urban neighbours on the other side of the boundary, through an open system of petitioning for the creation of a new parish. It would require at least 10 per cent. of the local government electors of the proposed parish to present a petition to the Local Government Commission asking for a new parish to be created. Conversely, those opposing such a move would have to provide a counter-petition signed by an identical number of local government electors. If the petition asking for a new parish were not opposed, the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to constitute the new parish within a year.
The second aim is to permit Charter Trustee cities and towns, which comprise 22 historic communities which have kept their mayors but which have no local government powers, through a petition submitted by at least 10 per cent. of the community's local government electors which asks that the city or town be made a parish. On that being done, and with the agreement of the Charter Trustee body, the Secretary of State would have to constitute a new parish.
The Bill does not seek to impose a parish council on the people of an unparished area against their will. It is a democratic and voluntary process which I believe to be important. Today many urban communities continue to be denied true local representation when areas a short distance away have or are being promised parish or town councils. The Bill sets out to remedy that situation.
In welcoming later speakers in the debate I wish to welcome in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I attended his enthronement as long ago as May 1982. I remember his address from the chancel steps of Worcester Cathedral in which he said to the large congregation, "Will you follow me to Dudley?". Dudley represents a substantial part of the urban fringe of his diocese to the north. That was not
316
only an invitation but a challenge and a realisation of the importance of the urban part of his diocese. We look forward to his speech, in particular his intimate knowledge of the area in the north of his diocese and in the Midlands.
While the review continues under the auspices of the Boundary Commission, which is warmly welcomed, some progress is being made. I readily acknowledge that. I also wish to acknowledge the support given by those who have drafted the Bill so carefully and conscientiously. I greatly appreciate the letter which I received from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in regard to the background. A number of speakers are to follow me and I do not wish to delay them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sandys.)
8.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing the Bill. I support its Second Reading because I believe that my diocese of Worcester demonstrates in microcosm the need which in macrocosm is nationwide.
Kidderminster, an historic and industrial town, the place of the great Richard Baxter's ministry and the home of Roland Hill, the originator of the penny post, has only a Charter Mayor and Charter Trustees with solely ceremonial duties. There is not so much as a local council to decide upon or to activate the care of the town war memorial and many other local issues.
Nor is there any justice when nearby Stourport-on-Severn and Bewdley are parished and Kidderminster, which is three times as large with 57,000 people, is unparished. Halesowen including Cradley (population of 58,000) has no council but the nearby large village of Romsley has a council. Stourbridge, including Amblecote, Lye and Wollescote (population 56,000) are unparished and so also are Netherton, Brierley Hill, Coseley, Quarry Bank, Gornal, Wordsley, Kingswinford and Sedgley. I could go on, but time will not allow. Suffice it to say that 600,000 people living in the old county of Worcester, which is my diocese, are disenfranchised at the civil parish level.
I beg Her Majesty's Government not to stonewall local people who seek the creation of a parish. It cannot be right that historic cities and towns and other established urban communities continue to be denied truly local representation. Is it not true that that which is local is real? Do we not want a nation which is at ease with itself? Do we not want a nation where civic pride is restored and violence is removed from our streets? Does not the principle of subsidiarity imply that local issues are best addressed by local people in Norfolk, in Worcestershire or in the Black Country? We have now adapted to local government reforms. It is not likely that war will break out between parish councils and the new superior unitary authorities. That might have been true in 1977 but not now that we arc older and wiser. Furthermore, the best criterion for the parishing of a town is surely the expressed desire of its electorate.

317
I do not believe that we shall have the one nation that we desire if we go all out for centrism and neglect the freedom of local people to express themselves over local issues. I hope that the Bill will be sent on its way to the Committee stage. I believe that it is concerned with quintessential democracy. Perhaps I may quote a couple of sentences from the Redcliffe-Maud Report:
"Our conclusion that local councils must be part of the new system is unanimous. We do not see them as having statutory responsibility for any local government service: but we do see them as contributing a vital element to democratic local government".
I believe that the passage of this Bill is being watched by large numbers of people. It would strike a blow in favour of a participatory national policy and the involvement of many in the good order of their communities and, therefore, of the nation as a whole. I am glad to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too welcome this Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandys on introducing it. It is interesting that his approach and that of the right reverend Prelate is somewhat different from mine, but the Bill seems to satisfy both.
It is much supported in principle by the Isle of Wight Council, the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils and by the National Association of Local Councils. When I became president of the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils about 15 years ago, the Isle of Wight was the most emparished county in England, and I think it probably still is, with the whole of one of its districts having parish and town councils and several such councils in the other district.
Until the passing of the 1992 Local Government Act, the creation of new parish councils was very simple if the community wanted it and the district council agreed. The executive powers given in Sections 9 to 12 of the 1972 Act are largely in the hands of the district with the Secretary of State having overseeing powers over the necessary order which would have to be laid. I have gathered as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils that that system has produced an excellent bottom layer of local government. Indeed, in my own experience, not only in the Isle of Wight but particularly there, I have nothing but praise for the parish and town councils. They do a wonderful job in feeding just that link between the next stage and the ordinary electors. Therefore, it is terribly important to realise that there is really no point in making it difficult to form parish councils when they are wanted by the local people.
However, from the point of view of the local people, the 1992 Act was, I suspect inadvertently, a disaster in relation to the expansion of parish councils. Sections 13 and 14(3)(f) and (g) and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule 3 of the 1992 Act took all the powers for establishing a new parish and town council away from the local people and gave them to the local government commission, thus imposing unexpected and inordinate delays. For example, in the Isle of Wight we have wished for some months— over a year really— to have
318
no further delay in establishing a town council for East Cowes. That is wanted by the local people and supported by the Isle of Wight Council which, as a unitary authority, has replaced the county council and the two district councils. There is no need for delay except for the dead hand of the 1992 Act. Therefore, we greatly support the principle of this Bill. I hope that with any amendment which the Minister might care to ask to be added to it, and with subsequent government support, it can be speedily handled by this House and pressed on through another place without delay. I strongly support the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support this Second Reading, perhaps I may explain something of my background and why I have reached some of my thinking about the situation and what some of the results might be.
I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who mentioned that Plymouth was unparished because, prior to 1832, it did not have a Member of Parliament. I am very proud that my ancestor, the father of the first Lord Monkswell, was the first MP for Plymouth.
Bringing the House a little more up to date, I can report also that in my youth my father was a member of the Halstead Urban District Council in Essex and for a short period was also a county councillor in Essex. Coming even closer to modern times, I served as a member of the Manchester City Council for five years until 1994. This House will appreciate that the modern metropolitan district council is very far removed from the size of a parish council.
My experience as a metropolitan district councillor suggested to me that there is grave problems in not having a tier of democracy below that. Manchester has something like half a million souls and stretches 15 miles in a north-south direction and two or three miles in an east-west direction. It was very easy for a decision that affected the local community in one part of the city to be made by people who did not know the local area. The lack of parish councils resulted in, I suspect, a significant number of wrong decisions being made.
I am a passionate believer in the need for what I would describe as a multi-layered democracy. The situation that we have seen over the past 15 years of eroding tiers of government, whether it he the metropolitan counties or the county councils in some areas of England, has been a very retrograde step. By passing the Second Reading of this Bill and getting the Bill on to the statute book, I hope that we might redress the balance.
Something that I particularly appreciate and endorse about the Bill is the fact that it enables change from the bottom up. It enables people in their own communities to come together to make a decision and they will have a democratic structure. That is at total variance with the way in which local government reorganisation has been conducted during the past 50 years. Following Royal Commissions and Cabinet decisions, local government

319
has been determined from the centre. It is a very powerful argument in favour of this Bill that it enables building from the bottom upwards.
Perhaps I may look at some of the measures that parish council might take. I have made a list of practical steps that I used to be faced with as a councillor of a metropolitan district. Those decisions would be made by the town hall some distance both geographically and democratically from the point of effect of the local community; for example, the design of traffic calming schemes. It is quite interesting how those schemes can affect local people in their communities but if the decision is taken at the town hall many miles away that may interfere with the smooth running of the community. Perhaps I may mention also small planning applications, the management of local primary schools, the management of community centres. All those matters are very sensitive to the local community and decisions about them are best made at local level.
We need to recognise also that without giving parish councils the ability to spend what may be small sums of money, the community, through its democracy, will not have the mechanism to do what a community should be able to do. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned the maintenance of a war memorial. That is the sort of action that should be taken by the local community coming together through democracy to look after what is important to it. From these Benches, I warmly welcome the Bill and heartily hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the hour is late, and I shall not keep your Lordships long. As a fellow member of Worcestershire from which my noble friend Lord Sandys and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester come, I wish to associate myself with the Bill. Not only is the measure important now, hut, according to the Sunday press, it may be even more important in the future. Reference has not been made to a Sunday newspaper article which stated that in the year 2016 there may be 27 large new towns within England. If one has large new towns, one has to have people to govern them and to organise at grass roots level. Parishes will be there to do just that.
The Bill has been widely welcomed by those who believe, as I do, in democratic local government. Worcestershire is one of the better counties for parishes. Perhaps I may say that it is one of the luckier counties. There are only 10,200 parishes in England at present. I hope that more will be created as a result of asking the Secretary of State to authorise them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and I had the pleasure of meeting many years ago Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that wise counsellor who produced that excellent report. He said many wise things. Most of us will have read the report and I shall not go into it in detail. He emphasised the point that the local people should not only be elected but represented. Their voices should be heard on the higher district councils, county councils, or whatever those bodies will be called in the future.
320
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, enumerated some of the jobs which voluntary people organise in their parishes. I rang my local office in Buckinghamshire. In my parish we are given £2,500 per year by the district council. People work quite hard, voluntarily, within the precept that has been allowed. They help with the roads or with the police. They try to organise the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme— sometimes they are successful— which in the countryside can sometimes be invaluable. More importantly, they are asked by the district council for advice on local planning. Local planning can be absolutely disastrous and managed badly by people from afar.
I shall say no more except that, unfortunately, today the voluntary organisation in the parish had a sad duty. The pond was iced over and the parish council was asked to see where the local foxes had eaten all the ducks.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing it. I declare an interest as a member of a London borough council but not, sadly, as a parish councillor. I believe that one reason for the subject of politics being in such low esteem is its remoteness from those to whom it should be closest. I may not be the only Member in this Chamber tonight who has been involved in more than one election campaign where campaigning has been based on such slogans as, "We shall stop this area being regarded as the forgotten part of the borough." It is possible to run large election campaigns in many places, all claiming, with some success, but also with some truth, that they are forgotten parts of the borough.
It is a truism—I have come across it on many occasions—that people generally like the services their local councils provide. They approve of them and have things to say about them. However, they dislike the authority that delivers those services. They do not know the names of their councillors. They do not understand their councillors' roles. A message on my answerphone today was from someone who clearly considered that I should be on duty at eleven o'clock in the morning taking calls about local problems. There is an expectation that councillors will be readily available. Indeed we should be, but it is not always possible.
People do not always vote. The turnout in local elections is variable. I come from an area where the voting figure is over 60 per cent. However, all noble Lords will know of examples where the figure is much lower. I believe that local people do not identify with the local authority, as the right reverend Prelate said. We talk about being involved in our communities. Communities do not come in standard sizes or as standard packages. Indeed, many of us may be members of more than one community at any one time. Certainly, the more local the representation the better able is the authority to act in its most important role— that of community leader.
In England we have the largest local authorities in Europe. Before the local government review, districts and metropolitan areas had to review the need for parishes

321
every 10 years. That gave an opportunity for communities to have their views recognised. I understand that the boundary commission, albeit somewhat slowly, quite often tended to approve proposed new parishes. However, under the Local Government Commission controls there is no duty to review except at the time of the review of the principal councils. Perhaps the Minister, or the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, can confirm that whereas about 50 or 70 new parish councils were created each year under the old process there have been only 30 in the past three years.
Some matters of detail in the Bill deserve scrutiny in the sense of, I hope, helpful criticism at later stages. I refer to the mechanisms for consultation; the comparative proportions; and the two figures of 10 per cent. If there were 70 per cent. in favour—I pluck a figure from the air—should the 10 per cent. be treated in the same way as with 10 per cent. in favour?
I daresay that the Government will have something to say about the provision in the Bill regarding going straight from the result of the local process to the Secretary of State making an order thereby bypassing consideration by either this or the other place. Bearing in mind the convolutions experienced as a result of the local government review in which the commission made recommendations with which the Secretary of State did not necessarily agree I can see a good deal of sense in the Bill's proposals. However, I have no doubt that that is an issue upon which we shall have to spend time at a later stage. I say all that subject to what I very much believe; namely, that people should be represented as they choose. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says there is no point in making the creation of parishes difficult. That goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talked about the "bottom up" approach. Again, that must be right.
The unsatisfactory nature of the current position is perhaps best exemplified by the position of charter trustees. To have recognised the desirability of carrying forward an historical local identity but only for ceremonial purposes seems almost to encapsulate the irony and the dilemma.
As a Londoner, I feel that I must mention it. I checked with a gentleman whom I believe to be one of the authors of the Bill. My understanding is that the legislation extends to London; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be able to confirm that. London is woefully unparished. For the sake of completeness, I would not like it to be thought that having parishes lets the principal council off the hook. Quite independently, the principal council has obligations to consult and to ensure that it understands all views which come from every part of each community it represents and serves. Parishes play an enormous part in the democratic process. Democracy must be an inclusive, not exclusive, process. Obviously, accountability demands a system which encourages the participation of the electorate. I showed the Bill to a colleague whose comment was, "This is a good thing." We support the Bill.
9.2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my credentials for participating in this evening's debate do not go back as far as those of my noble friend Lord Monkswell; nor, indeed, are they as up-to-date as those of current members of either parish or other councils. I suppose the furthest back that I can go is to say that I went to school in High Wycombe, which is one of the charter trustee towns. I believe that it had a borough council of its own, although it was probably an urban district council.
Since that time, I have been passionately in support of local democracy, which is what the Bill is about. I spent a number of years between 1963 and 1983 as a member of larger local authorities, ending up as a member of the largest of all; namely, the Greater London Council. But, in between times, I was very much involved in the neighbourhood council movement. My noble friend Lord Young of Dartington who founded the Association for Neighbourhood Councils carried out its first survey in my area of London— Hornsey— in 1970. He proved convincingly that, when one asks people where they live it transpires that they live in relatively small communities. Such communities can vary from less than 1,000 to a population of several thousand in London.
People in Hornsey, which has now been subsumed into Haringey, did not say that they lived in Hornsey or Haringey; they said that they lived in Muswell Hill, Highgate, Crouch End or wherever. At the time, it seemed to me to be rational that one should shape one's local government to fit what people thought was their community so that they could have an opportunity to devote themselves to that community. Therefore, when I was asked to be chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils in 1974, I gladly took on that duty. I continued with it until 1980, arguing all the time that the urban parts of England were the only areas of Great Britain which were denied the opportunity to have parish councils.
Parish councils exist almost everywhere in rural areas in England. Of course, under subsequent legislation, Scotland and Wales will have their own community councils in addition to the more formal structure of local government. However, it is the towns and cities of England which are deprived of that opportunity and of all the advantages which have been so eloquently expressed by speakers in this evening's debate. We argued both with Labour and Conservative Governments on the issue. I have to say that there were satraps of large local government in the Labour Party just as strongly as in the Conservative Party. They behaved just as badly in denying the right of local people to put up any opposition to their own often very autocratic behaviour. So this is not a particularly party matter.
We did not succeed in getting any significant change to the very restrictive conditions under the parish review procedure after the Local Government Act 1972. As a result, in the period between the 1972 and 1992 Acts, the creation of parishes in urban parts of cities and towns of England was negligible. There was a procedure

323
for it, but it was one that was so complicated, so much dependent on existing local government and, indeed, of overcoming the resistance of central government that it did not really work.
Following that, I introduced an urban parishes Bill in this House in 1984 which would have gone much further in its effect than the Bill that we are now considering. With the same sort of threshold of approval for a proposition to be put forward and a rather different threshold for objections to be presented, it would have provided for urban parishes in any part of the towns and cities of England where people wanted them. The present Bill is most severely restricted to the 22 charter towns. I believe that that is wise under the circumstances because the opposition of the Government in 1984 to our urban parishes Bill was quite severe at the outset, although I believe that it was tempered as the debate continued.
The result is that all these years after Redcliffe-Maud, and more than a century after the last fundamental upheaval which created local government in this country, there are still large parts of England which do not have truly local government. For the reasons that have been expressed by every speaker— from the example given by my noble friend Lord Monkswell and the ducks mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod—we desperately need this ultimate proof of our belief in subsidiarity.
I hope that the Minister will not say in reply that there is the possibility of dealing with the problem under the provisions of the Local Government Commission, because the noble Baroness has shown how ineffective that machinery is. I hope that he will say that this is a measure which is restrictive in its application, reflects the needs and demands of local people and can only he implemented if there is a considerable groundswell of opinion in favour of local democracy. I hope that he will say that the Government will not object to the Bill passing through this House and will also find time for it in another place. In that event, we shall have made a small but real step towards local democracy.
9.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my noble friend's Bill has the great merit of being a short one. That is a great advantage. Your Lordships almost to a man—and indeed also to a woman, although we must not he deflected by such niceties—have championed the virtues of the parish.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has not changed from the times when I sat opposite him on home affairs matters when he used to say that he hoped that I would say this and that I would not say the other. He has done exactly the same today. I shall not tell him whether I intend to accede to what he wishes. He will have to wait to find out.
My noble friend's Bill has the virtue of reflecting the importance that the Government attach to parishes. That was explained in the rural White Paper. Today's debate has also been the vehicle for what must be a somewhat questionable record of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
324
He has spoken in every debate and on two of the four Questions today. He must be a veritable polymath. However, I understand and share a certain affinity and sympathy with him. If the proposals in the speech made this evening by the leader of his party were ever to come to fruition, both he and I, as hereditary Peers, would be vaporised. I can quite understand the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wanting to make the best he can of the short time he thinks is available. However, the noble Lord need not worry too much because that little fantasy will not come to pass. Therefore, he will still he able to engage us with his speeches on almost every occasion of the day's business.
Following the local government review, the Government accepted the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the creation of 32 new parishes. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is informing his noble friend Lord Monkswell of what his leader said. The poor noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not know. I can tell him that the Labour Party intends to get rid of all hereditary Peers if it were ever to come to power. It will not; so we shall not be got rid of.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The idea of disenfranchising hereditary Peers has been on the table for some time. I am on record as welcoming the leader of my party offering to give me back my rights to vote and stand for Parliament. I hope that that right might also be extended to our colleagues who are life Peers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, seems to have forgotten that he had that right and could have divested himself of his peerage when he first inherited it if he wished. He evidently decided not to do so and preferred to be a Member of the House of Lords rather than chance his arm, and probably lose it, trying to become a Member of the House of Commons. However, let us leave that subject because it is a slight diversion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It certainly is.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot complain if his party leader makes provocative remarks and then someone objects to them.
The Government are in favour of parishes. I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester that the Government do not, as he put it, intend to stonewall on the creation of new parishes. I do not know where he got that idea, but I can assure him that it is an incorrect assessment. We have not stonewalled and do not intend to.
It is curious that Worcestershire is so well represented today by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lady Macleod. I wonder what goes on in Worcestershire that does not happen elsewhere. We welcome the broad intention of my noble friend's Bill to give local people a louder voice in calling for a new parish to be established. That is something which is missing in existing legislation.

325
The Local Government Act 1992 removed the provisions which were in the 1972 Act permitting districts to instigate parish reviews. Instead, the 1992 Act gave the Local Government Commission the duty of carrying out reviews when it was directed to do so by the Secretary of State. That system has not worked well.
Lord Mottistone: Hurray! It is splendid to hear my noble friend stating, as a Minister, that the system has not worked well. It has worked terribly badly.
Earl Ferrers: To have such support from behind me is enormously gratifying. I wish that my noble friend had said "Hurray" when I made my observations about the future composition of the House of Lords. He preferred to keep quiet. However, I have at least one supporter; that is good.
To reintroduce the old 1972 provisions would not be satisfactory. They did not make adequate provision for those cases where districts failed to instigate reviews. I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Sandys that we find a fundamental difficulty in the way the Bill is drafted. It affects both parts of the new schedule which the Bill would insert into the Local Government Act 1972.
We have no blueprint for the composition and size of parishes. There is no reason why they should not develop differently in different areas, if that is what people want. It is, though, the Government's view that parishes should not be so large that they dominate the district in which they are located. That is a recipe for confusion and a likely cause of dispute. It particularly applies to charter trustee towns, of which my noble friend, as High Steward of Kidderminster, has direct and deep experience. Several of the charter trustee towns are more than half the size of their respective districts.
Fixed and immovable procedures are also undesirable. They can be misused. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which the creation of a parish is not desired for its own sake but simply because the possible creation of such a parish can be a useful ploy in a wider dispute.
The process of obtaining signatures for a petition is not always beyond criticism. A petition can, of course, be the result of a careful explanation of the proposal to each individual and it can be the result of detailed consideration. But we can all think of cases in which the opposite would be true. I am also apprehensive, in a general way, about what might be called "a war of petitions" whereby one petition can be given to the commission saying: "We want this." Another petition can be presented to the commission saying, "We don't want that" and the commission would then have to act as an undignified referee. That is not the most enlightened way of considering changes to local government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that Her Majesty's Government might have views on the way in which the feelings of potential parishes were conveyed. She hit the nail on the head. We have several views on it. We need to construct a better process which, as the noble Baroness said, will create a role for the
326
districts not to obstruct but to assist. As she rightly said, consultation must be inclusive not exclusive. There must be a process which will allow the Secretary of State to have his own discretion in decisions, seeking advice from the Local Government Commission if he wishes to do so.
The Secretary of State would, of course, be obliged to use this discretion reasonably. I think that he has already demonstrated that that can be done under the existing procedures for creating parishes. For example, he has accepted the case for creating a number of sizeable parishes in former charter trustee areas which were created following the 1974 reorganisation.
In order to assist potential petitioners, we propose to revise the guidance on the size of new parishes which is contained in a circular drawn up in 1977. In particular, we are considering whether we should give more weight to the relationship between a potential parish area and the district in which it exists, rather than simply setting an absolute upper limit on what should be the size of parishes.
I hope that my noble friend will be good enough to take these comments in the spirit in which they are made. I believe that it would be good to allow for popular opinion to initiate a process leading to a new parish council, but the method of initiation proposed in the Bill is inadequate. I hope that my noble friend will consider the suggestions which I have made and will be able to reflect on the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. His suggestions to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are very positive and helpful. If the noble Lord wishes to seek the assistance of officials in his department, might such help be available to him?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, I am entirely at my noble friend's disposal. We like the idea of the creation of parishes, but the Bill as presently drafted excludes the Secretary of State in a way that would be undesirable and would enable parishes to follow their own momentum. If my noble friend wishes to seek any help, I shall be more than happy to give it to him.
That said, I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thought that I was being helpful. It took him the whole of my speech to realise that, but I was actually trying to be helpful. I hope that my noble friend will choose to consider those points for his Bill.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I greatly appreciate all the contributions to this debate. My noble friend Lord Mottistone put his finger on the heart of the matter; namely, that support must spring from the grass roots.
We are concerned with a disparity of representation. It should be emphasised to my noble friend the Minister that there are thought to be over 35.5 million subjects of Her Majesty who are not enfranchised at the local level. I am advised that that figure is correct. I am further advised that it covers the whole of England.

327
I shall have to take advice in seeking a correct response to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to whether only 30 parishes were created in recent years, and the status of London. The noble Baroness will know, as I do, that the Redcliffe-Maud report excluded London entirely. But the government of London has subsequently changed. Therefore there may well be an enabling procedure whereby parishes may be created in London. I do not know at the present time.
Turning to the difficulties that are presented and the very receptive manner in which my noble friend the Minister replied, it would be extraordinarily valuable if
328
we could establish an opportunity to discuss the content of the Bill, recognising that there are limits to which the Government may seek to go at this present stage, but that they may be persuaded by argument and proposal at a later stage.
I thank all who participated in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past nine o'clock.

  Data Protection Registrar: Study Report
  Data Protection Registrar: Study Report
  Persons on Remand: Statistics
  Persons on Remand: Statistics
  A.13 Road
  A.13 Road
  A.127 Road
  A.127 Road
  A.127 Road: Accident Figures
  A.127 Road: Accident Figures
  Pesticide Usage
  Pesticide Usage
  Crop Losses: Estimates
  Crop Losses: Estimates
  Pesticide Resistance
  Pesticide Resistance
  CAP: EC Spending
  CAP: EC Spending
  IACS Subsidies
  IACS Subsidies
  IACS Applications: Deadline
  IACS Applications: Deadline
  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Animal Welfare: Consideration at the IGC
  Animal Welfare: Consideration at the IGC
  MAFF Cash Limits: Changes
  MAFF Cash Limits: Changes
  Tourism: Effect of VAT
  Tourism: Effect of VAT
  Disabled People: Direct Payments in Lieu of Services
  Disabled People: Direct Payments in Lieu of Services
  Lifting: Health and Safety Guidance
  Lifting: Health and Safety Guidance