Sitting of 15 January 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to resolve matters relating to his Department concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. [7442]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): My Department has thoroughly reviewed the UK national aviation security programme in the light of Lockerbie. Many improvements have resulted. Work continues to develop the security regime further.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question of which I have given him notice? Seven long years after Lockerbie, has not the time at last arrived for the Government to publish the circumstances in which the then Secretary of State for Transport, Cecil Parkinson, offered in good faith a public inquiry—not, as the Prime Minister would have it, a confidential inquiry—and why Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, vetoed such an inquiry? Should not the Government also publish details of why the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)—in equally good faith—told journalists in the Garrick club that the perpetrators of the dreadful crime would be found within weeks? If senior civil servants and current Ministers do not publish something on those events, they might be seen to be part of a wicked cover-up.
    Sir George Young: With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) explained the circumstances to the House on 21 March 1989, and I have nothing to add to that.
    On the question of which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give my office notice, when my noble Friend Lord Parkinson indicated to the British relatives in 1989 that he was prepared to consider a confidential inquiry, the question of how best to proceed had not been decided by Ministers. In making their collective decision not to hold such an inquiry, Ministers had to take into account the likelihood that a fatal accident inquiry would be held, and that a criminal investigation was in hand which might ultimately result in court proceedings.
    In the event, a fatal accident inquiry was held, as well as three other inquiries. The fatal accident inquiry examined in detail the actions taken by my Department in response to intelligence received before the incident and concluded that they were not unreasonable.
    392
    Finally, the criminal investigation was successful in producing sufficient evidence to issue warrants. That evidence clearly represents additional information available to the Government which is not yet in the public domain. It is vital, however, that none of the evidence is revealed before the trial of the two accused, lest that prejudices the outcome.

    Local Transport Provision
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the adequacy of local transport provision. [7443]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We have allocated £830 million to English local authorities for 1996–97. I consider that allocation to be adequate.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Minister acknowledge that Labour local authorities such as York and Edinburgh have successfully pioneered new packaged approaches which address local transport needs? Is it not high time that the Government followed their lead and adopted an integrated, long-term approach to transport instead of the dogma-driven chaos of privatisation and deregulation which have strangled our railways and bus services and turned our roads into travelling car parks?
    Mr. Norris: That would have been an intelligent question were it not 18 months out of date. The packaged approach was developed by the Government and local authorities of all political persuasions enthusiastically support the approach because they see the good sense of it. The hon. Gentleman should know that packaged expenditure has significantly increased this year for precisely the reasons which—belatedly—he has come to realise make such sense.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Despite transport supplementary grant settlement being provided for the Wainscott northern bypass, Labour and Liberal-controlled Kent county council has delayed the start of the work and delayed issuing tenders. Why on earth did the Department not ring-fence the money so that the council could not indulge in such political chicanery?
    Mr. Norris: We gave by far the largest allocation of the local transport settlement to Kent, which historically receives a large allocation. The order of priority for schemes, however, is a matter for Kent. I regret that my hon. Friend is disappointed with the allocation, but I hope that she will direct her questions on that subject to the county council, which does not appear to have been particularly enthusiastic about defending her constituents' interests.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree with me that while the issue of transport is important at the national level, most transport measures—such as rapid transit, chicanes, traffic calming, sleeping police men—are delivered at local level and impact at that level? If he agrees with that statement, will he explain to the House, to local authorities and to the local electors why his Department has cut central support to local authority transport schemes by one half in the past three years?
    Mr. Norris: I think that it is up to the hon. Gentleman to specify how much in additional resources he would like to see allocated for transport measures. Once he has decided that, he should have a word with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and clear that rather aberrant line with him. I fear that the Leader of the Opposition would utterly dismiss such loose talk.
    Any responsible Government will receive far more good quality bids for local transport expenditure than are able to be financed. The sooner the hon. Gentleman learns that fact, the better he may be able to perform in his new portfolio.

    Northern Line
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects new trains to be introduced on the Northern line. [7444]
    Mr. Norris: I understand that London Underground plans to begin introducing its new, privately financed train service on the Northern line towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome the substantial investment in the Golders Green depot, which will improve job opportunities in my constituency, and the £1 billion upgrade on the Northern line, which will improve the quality of life of many of my constituents, but may I ask my hon. Friend whether the slight delay in the introduction of new trains on the Northern line will involve the payment of any compensation by GEC?
    Mr. Norris: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that as a result of the arrangement which London Underground was able to include under the private finance initiative, late delivery of trains will indeed give rise to compensation. Taxpayers will get some of their money back if the contractor fails to perform. That is in stark contrast with the pre-existing arrangements whereby in publicly owned utilities no compensation was available.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister realise that travellers on the Northern line have had an appalling service for a long time and that that situation continues? Can he assure the House that there will be no increased cost to London Transport or to Londoners generally as a result of the private financing of the new line? Can he also assure us that the people who will lose their jobs at London Transport if the train maintenance work is given to GEC or other contractors will be compensated, and that the people who are employed will be employed under proper conditions commensurate with those of workers at London Underground?
    Mr. Norris: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, historically, the Northern line has not been good enough. It was not good enough through all the years of Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was not good enough under the Conservative Governments interspersed between them.
    I am delighted that the £1 billion improvement to the Northern line is now very much under way and that the almost £400 million-worth of new trains procured under the PFI should be introduced towards the end of the year. The detailed conditions of implementing that contract are properly a matter for London Underground, but I know that it is concerned—as the hon. Gentleman quite properly is—to see that sensible arrangements in terms of staff and the use of facilities are made.

    London-Tilbury-Southend Line
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plan to privatise the Fenchurch Street line. [7445]
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the privatisation of the London-Tilbury-Southend line. [7454]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The LTS rail franchise was awarded to Enterprise Rail Ltd., the management-employee buy-out team, on 20 December 1995. Enterprise Rail will deliver real quality of service benefits to passengers for less financial support than is currently being paid to British Rail.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents could not care less who runs the Fenchurch Street line, except insofar as they want the trains to arrive on time, the fares to be maintained at a reasonable cost and to travel in relative comfort? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the privatisation will result in all of that, and will he take this opportunity to condemn inaccurate statements by Labour and Liberal politicians about the effects of the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line on the level of services?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend will be pleased to tell his constituents that the new franchise operator has committed itself to the complete replacement of rolling stock on that line and has offered to increase the punctuality standard from the current 88 per cent. to 90 per cent. from 1 October 1996.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the privatisation of LTS, which I fully support, is obviously very controversial, will the Minister ensure that the new operators will publish every quarter—perhaps every month—full details of changes, improvements or deterioration in reliability, so that the residents of Southend and other places can see for themselves whether privatisation makes an improvement or makes things worse?
    Mr. Watts: Operators are required to publish details of their performance and, as I have just explained to the House, the performance standards against which their performance will be measured will be much more rigorous than those which apply to the current nationalised operation.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is not the minimum service requirement for the London-Tilbury-Southend line way below that of existing provision? What guarantees are there that the good intentions of those management people who have secured the franchise will be fulfilled? Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of the passengers who use the LTS line do not believe that the arithmetic will add up or that those people who will run that line will be able to maintain the services, let alone comply with the very attractive offer that they are now waving before us? Will the Minister ensure that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is fulfilled—that any backsliding, any deterioration on the commitments that those people have given, will be publicised and will be understood by the fare-paying passengers?
    Mr. Watts: Passengers should stop listening to the hon. Gentleman and simply pay attention to the facts. It is not a matter of good intentions; it is a matter of contract. Enterprise Rail has contracted to maintain at least the existing level of service. There will be an additional off-peak service each hour from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness Mondays to Saturdays. There will be a minimum frequency of 15 minutes during the peak hour for key stations. There will be an hourly Sunday service for Rainham, Purfleet, Dagenham and Dagenham Dock stations. Services will stop at Limehouse on Sunday and there will be two new services out of London after 10 pm Mondays to Saturdays.
    Mr. Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important priorities on that line is that there should be new rolling stock? Is it not very welcome that under the new arrangements we are likely to have new rolling stock earlier?
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Enterprise Rail has committed itself to an investment programme including the replacement of the entire fleet with new rolling stock, all to be completed by the year 2002, in addition to station redecoration and refurbishments, improved station security, public address systems and improved ticket issuing.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Where will all the money come from?
    Mr. Watts: From the efficiencies of the private sector.

    Public Transport Investment
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment levels in public transport. [7446]
    Mr. Norris: The planned level of Government expenditure on transport over the next three years was announced in the Chancellor's Financial Statement and Budget Report in November.
    Ms Quin: Is the Minister aware of the strong criticisms expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and others about the inadequate levels of investment in public transport in this country? In that regard, does the Minister know of the special anxiety expressed by business in the north-east of England about the report that plans for a freight terminal for our region are to be shelved and that, as a consequence, freight will have to travel 100 miles or so on already congested roads before reaching a rail freight terminal for the continent? What does the Minister intend to do about that, and where does that leave the Government's policy of transferring more freight from road to rail?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving notice of the question that she intended to ask. The provision of rail freight facilities is essentially a commercial matter and rail operators and Railtrack will consider the appropriateness of investment decisions. Freightliner operates container freight services to and from a terminal in Cleveland owned by ICI. Two new freight terminals at Doncaster and Wakefield, readily accessible to the region, are being developed to handle European traffic. Loadhaul, the domestic train-load business based in the north-east, operates trains to numerous private freight facilities throughout the region.
    396
    On that basis, the hon. Lady will understand that not only is there freight rail activity in her area, but that that activity is substantial. However, it is quite properly for the private sector and Railtrack to determine the pattern of particular cargoes on any individual expedition.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: On the subject of investment in London transport, does my hon. Friend agree that the problem that we face today has been caused by chronic underinvestment in previous years, as instanced by the fact that in the 1970s annual investment averaged less than £50 million and in each of the five years of the 1990s it has risen to a staggering £500 million a year? Is that not a matter for commendation, showing that Government policies are on the right lines? Will my right hon. Friend listen with a degree of cynicism to those Opposition Members who complain about the lack of investment today when they were responsible for chronic underinvestment?
    Mr. Norris: It will not astonish my hon. Friend to know that I happen to have the figures in front of me and they do indeed make embarrassing listening for the Opposition. Purely by coincidence I have the figures for 1997, 1998 and 1999, which show for those three years the investment was—[Interruption.] I meant 1977, 1978 and 1979; I apologise—I had not realised that the matter was so tender. I will make it clear by apologising and stating that I was referring to the halcyon days of the last Labour Government when, in their munificence, at current 1995-96 prices, the level of investment was £214 million, £198 million and £257 million. In the past three years, for 1993-94 the figure is £860 million, for 1994-95 it is £984 million and this year it is £1,085 million.
    Mr. Chidgey: Bearing in mind the fact that the winners of the franchise for South Western Trains have made it clear that they have no proposals to invest in new rolling stock, how does the Minister justify paying them a subsidy of £55 million next year, particularly since when British Rail last ran the region as its operator two years ago it did so without a subsidy and at substantial profit?
    Mr. Norris: These days one looks to the Liberal party to hear a distinctive left-wing voice. However, to refer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the answer is that the operator of the service will offer infinitely better value for money through much-increased efficiency in terms of both manpower and investment on a service that has traditionally not received either the levels of managerial attention or the level of investment to which passengers in that area are entitled. I very much look forward to a massively enhanced quality of service on that line.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Looking to the future rather than the past, is it more likely that the levels of investment in public transport that are required will be better than those that we now know are projected if we were simply relying on the availability of resources in the public sector?
    Mr. Norris: I think that my hon. Friend knows the answer. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that, freed from the constraints of public sector financing, train operators generally and the railway industry as a whole will generate substantially greater investment in the railways because of the privatisation of British Rail that is now taking place.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will have noticed that, as I was told last week, the £1.8 billion from the rolling stock companies will not be invested in the railway industry. Can he assure me that it will not be hypothecated? In other words, presumably the £1.8 billion from all the private finance with which he is so delighted will go straight to tax cuts.
    Mr. Norris: I would have expected more of the hon. Lady. She knows that that is a sham of a question. As I have said, investment levels will be substantially higher. The direct answer on hypothecation is that it would have been an extraordinary precedent in this or any other sector and, in truth, the hon. Lady knows it.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would not the Government's capital progress on transport be very much greater were it not for the fact that the Government have to write off £453 million in respect of the Humber bridge debts? Is that not a clear example of the most expensive political sleaze case this century by the Labour party?
    Mr. Norris: I am sure that the House will draw its own conclusion from my hon. Friend's pithy intervention.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the House is agog at the news that the Minister is currently writing his memoirs. We hope that they will be a little more exciting and accurate than the fiction that we have heard from him today. For instance, in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), will he confirm that investment in the domestic railway this year is at its lowest in real terms since nationalisation in 1948? That is fact, not fiction. Will he also confirm that the much trumpeted Railtrack 10-year plan of £1 billion a year is less than has been invested in the railways even in the past decade? Will he send a message to Tory Members around the country who claim that privatisation is the only way to new electrification schemes and try to explain to them why the Railtrack 10-year investment plan outside the Heathrow area does not include a single new electrification scheme?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the completely unexpected but none the less welcome puff. I shall ensure that he receives a rare unsigned copy in due course. Not one chapter has yet been written, but one should be grateful for popularity wherever it comes from. To return to the question, I merely remind the hon. Gentleman that there is not the slightest doubt that my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) is entirely correct. Historically, under Labour Governments—indeed, specifically and particularly under Labour Governments—investment in the railways has been insufficient to meet the technical and operating demands on the system. It is clear that privatisation will liberate the various components of the railway industry to invest at an appropriate level and to improve standards and quality of service, as we have seen from the franchises that have already been let. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He is good at using clever words to conceal the fact that the Opposition's policy on such issues is in complete and total disarray.

    Railway Rolling Stock
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the provision of new rolling stock for Kent commuters. [7447]
    Mr. Watts: In his invitation to tender for the south eastern franchise, the franchising director invited
    398
    proposals for the provision of rolling stock for the full franchise term, which could include the provision of new rolling stock.
    Sir Roger Moate: I thank my hon. Friend for the good news that the new trains for Kent commuters are likely to be part of the South Eastern Trains franchise. We hope, therefore, that the franchise will go ahead as quickly as possible. Given the size and importance of the likely order for new trains, will he confirm that the length of the franchise will be sufficiently variable to cope with such a big capital investment? Will he also ensure that the franchisee is expected to get on with placing that order very fast indeed?
    Mr. Watts: Yes. As we have shown with the London-Tilbury-Southend franchise, the term can be extended—in that case to 15 years—on condition that it includes the replacement of rolling stock. That facility will also be available for the south-eastern franchise. So that no time is lost, British Rail issued a general notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities under the prequalification procedure which a franchise operator can use to take an early decision on the procurement of new rolling stock.
    Dr. Marek: Why is it that, under the last Labour Government, commuters on the north Kent coast line could commute to London seated four abreast with plenty of space for their knees while under the Government's new order they will have to sit five abreast without adequate leg room?
    Mr. Watts: I am tempted to suggest that perhaps some of the Government's health education propaganda about being overweight has been taken up by the people of Kent. The hon. Gentleman should know that Kent commuters have already benefited from the recent large investment in Networkers. They will soon benefit further from part of the Networker Express order currently being completed by ABB.

    Ferry Safety
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current United Kingdom policy on ferry safety. [7448]
    Sir George Young: The Government are committed to the highest practicable standards of ferry safety. Strong pressure from the United Kingdom and other north European countries at the November International Maritime Organisation meeting led to the adoption of a resolution authorising countries who wish to do so to apply a higher stability standard to roll-on roll-off ferries using their ports. We shall continue to press for agreement on higher stability standards in north-west Europe and the Baltic.
    Mr. Shaw: Last Saturday I witnessed Dover score yet another first when we carried out the first major evacuation exercise on a ferry ship in Dover port. The 842 people on board were evacuated safely and carefully without injury. I believe that that is the largest number ever evacuated from a ferry in Europe or in the rest of the world. Will my hon. Friend congratulate all 842 volunteers who took part in that very important exercise, which showed that Dover's ferries are immensely safe and are suitable for everyone to travel in and enjoy a jolly good holiday?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spending time on Saturday witnessing the largest evacuation exercise ever undertaken on a ferry. I join him in complimenting the Marine Safety Agency and the crew and the owners of the Stena Invicta on that exercise.
    My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there was an effective passenger muster and a successful launch of lifeboats, deployment of escape chutes and inflation of the first life rafts. An analysis of the exercise will be published in due course. I think that it is best to await that full analysis before coming to any final conclusions.
    Mr. Flynn: As virtually every ferry disaster has occurred in mid-ocean with the ship on fire, sometimes listing or on its side and always carrying a broad spectrum of humanity—including the elderly and the young—how realistic was it to conduct Saturday's exercise in broad daylight, with entirely able-bodied adults and with the ship tied to the quay? Even in those totally unrealistic circumstances, only 350 people were evacuated from the ship within the time in which the Government said that 2,000 people could be evacuated. The weekend's trial has proved one thing—that roll-on roll-over ferries are the most dangerous form of passenger transport and that their systems are not fail-safe but fail-lethal.
    Sir George Young: If roll-on roll-off ferries are operated and maintained properly there is no risk of the type that the hon. Gentleman has described.
    As to the exercise, it is important to inject a degree of realism. We were dealing with volunteers who would clearly have been put at great risk if we had replicated the very dangerous circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described. One of the reasons why it took some 65 minutes to evacuate all 842 people was that the passengers were over-cautious in going down the chutes, and were encouraged to be so by the master and crew. In a real emergency, I think that the hon. Gentleman would find that they would exhibit less caution.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the progress of the Government's rail privatisation programme; and if he will make a statement. [7449]
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review progress on rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [7457]
    Sir George Young: In December, the franchising director awarded the franchises for South West Trains, Great Western and LTS Rail. The award of four more franchises will be made as soon as practicable. Railtrack will be floated in May 1996. Twenty-nine businesses, with a combined turnover of some £1.4 billion, have already been sold. Further rail businesses and franchises with a combined turnover of nearly £3 billion are on the market.
    I am satisfied with that progress and am confident that the progress will bring benefits to passengers and taxpayers.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give me a guarantee today that, if privatisation goes ahead in full, there will be no reductions in the inter-city service to and from Doncaster? Does he accept that, if reductions take
    400
    place, they will cause serious damage to the local economy in Doncaster? How will he justify that to the business people and local community in my town?
    Sir George Young: The question that really needs to be asked is: if privatisation goes ahead, what on earth will the Labour party do?
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I hope that he will be greatly reassured by what has happened in the first three franchises: existing services have not just been maintained but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads a few moments ago, additional services, which were not provided by BR, are being provided by those who are bidding for the new franchises. Far from providing a worse service, privatisation and franchising will enhance the level of service that passengers enjoy.
    Mr. Jones: During the passage of the Railways Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House were given assurances that Railtrack would remain in the public sector. Given that that is not now the case, what reasons can the Government give for not allowing a debate and a vote on that issue? Surely it cannot be because of a lack of Government time.
    Sir George Young: The Government have all the powers that they need to privatise Railtrack. It has been our clear purpose throughout the past Parliament to place Railtrack in the private sector, because only by doing that can one get the benefit of full privatisation, which comes from removing the restraints on public sector investment that will always remain while Railtrack is in the public sector. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the network management strategy published by Railtrack, he will see that it is planning to invest at a higher rate than British Rail. That is a clear benefit to his constituents and all those who use the railways.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the state runs and owns everything, the people own and run nothing, and that is why it is essential to continue with the policy of privatisation, to open British Rail to consumer pressure for the first time since nationalisation in the 1940s?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the things that we are doing is giving those who work for Railtrack an opportunity to acquire a stake in it. They will be offered shares in Railtrack when it is floated. All that we hear from Opposition Members is that they will resist if those workers acquire that stake. On the one hand, Opposition Members talk about a stakeholder economy; on the other, when we offer people a stake in their industry, they criticise us for doing that.
    Sir David Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Railtrack has given a firm commitment that, once it is privatised, it will get on with the modernisation of the west coast main line, which will result in better rolling stock and faster trains?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The signalling contract is under consideration at the moment; it is hoped to be placed in March. It is indeed the case that Railtrack has as a priority the modernisation of the west coast main line.
    Ms Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State did not intend to mislead the House earlier, but I remind him that during the passage of the Railways Bill it was assumed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that Railtrack would remain in public ownership for the foreseeable future. As there is a massive difference between a rail network where Railtrack is in public ownership and one where it is in private ownership and the House of Commons has never been given the opportunity to vote on that issue, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any party that claims to respect the sovereignty of the House of Commons should arrange a debate on the issue and be allowed a vote before Railtrack is floated?
    Sir George Young: That is an extraordinary argument, produced by Opposition Members right at the end of the privatisation process. As I have said, the Government have all the powers that they need to privatise Railtrack. We do not need any more authority from the House. However, I would welcome a debate on rail privatisation, in which I would hope that the Labour party would at last come clean on what on earth its strategy is. As on so many issues, the Labour party is ashamed of its past and it is silent about its future.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the west coast main line will provide tremendous opportunities for further investment raised in the private capital market, which would never be available if the line remained in the public sector? That investment will allow the electrification of the line between Blackpool and Preston that is so badly needed, and we shall be able to reintroduce for the benefit of my constituents the through services from London that nationalised British Rail withdrew.
    Sir George Young: One of the prime reasons for privatising the railways is to make faster progress with investment than is possible in the public sector. We have already heard in this Question Time about the extra investment in rolling stock that has resulted from franchising. Following franchising, rolling stock has been refurbished and renewed at a faster rate than under British Rail, and Railtrack's investment plan shows that it plans to invest at a higher rate than British Rail. I agree with my hon. Friend: privatisation will accelerate investment in our railways.

    Transport (London)
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport system in London. [7450]
    Mr. Norris: The Government plan a continuing high level of investment in London's transport system, with increasing benefits to passengers from greater efficiency and increased private sector involvement.
    Mrs. Prentice: Will the Minister apologise to users of London transport who have faced fare increases of up to 14 per cent. in the past week? Will he also apologise to the 100,000 passengers whose journeys to work are being disrupted by urgent repair work that could have been dealt with sensibly had the Government bothered to invest in the network?
    Given that the previous Secretary of State for Transport—now chairman of the Conservative party—said only last year that fare levels would be stabilised and
    402
    would eventually fall, will the Minister apologise to the whole country for the present state of our transport system?
    Mr. Norris: That is an extraordinary series of requests, coming from a member of a party whose record of investment in London is so abysmal that we are now experiencing far more disruption than we would had it invested in the system properly when it was in office. It is shameful for Labour politicians to seek to extract a palpably incorrect interpretation from the considerable investment that is now taking place. The hon. Lady advances the extraordinary proposition that we should apologise for the fact that decades of neglect by Governments of her persuasion—indeed, all Governments—are now being remedied for the benefit of passengers.
    As for the issue of fares, if the hon. Lady has any proposals, have they been costed by her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury team? I suspect not.
    The current Administration have ensured that London Transport now makes an operating profit on its activity, as a result of which investment levels are at a level unparalleled since the war.
    Mr. Brooke: What prospect does my hon. Friend see of further new schemes to accelerate the movement of buses in London, similar to the initiative at Shepherds Bush?
    Mr. Norris: I certainly foresee a continuation of that programme. Bus priority is another of the programmes that have received increased funding in this year's London local transport settlement; it is the key to better patronage of buses and, in turn, to the success of any urban transport system.
    The experiment at Shepherds Bush has been extremely successful. We are building on it, with local authorities in west London and other authorities of all political persuasions throughout the capital.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall the encouraging reply given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) about the proposals of Transport on Water for an imaginative scheme providing public water buses in London, to be funded by a mixture of public and private capital? The public capital would cover the transfer of traffic from road to water—mentioned by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—particularly the transfer of coach traffic, some of it carrying visitors, among the five tourist centres between the Tate gallery and the tower of London. Such a scheme would reduce congestion, and secure the support of the people of London. As the tide of time is now against the Government, will they float the scheme and push the boat out while they have the chance?
    Mr. Norris: That was a rather tortuous metaphor, but, on the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have to say that I share his aspiration. I have long wanted river boat services to return to the Thames, but the prerequisite is that they should be viable, at least at the operating level. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that proposition.
    I am happy to examine the proposal made by Transport on Water—indeed, we have plans of our own to try to improve river services. However, the hon. Gentleman,

    403
    who is extremely knowledgeable about the Thames and its use in the past 30 or 40 years, knows that such a proposition is not as easy to implement as it appears. There are some inherent costs in waterborne transport operations which far exceed those per passenger mile on, for example, buses or light rail.

    Central Railway Project
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Central Railway project. [7451]
    Mr. Watts: The promoters of the Central Railway project are preparing an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that most hon. Members, and, indeed, most members of the public, share the aim of shifting more freight from the roads to the railways. However, he may not be aware that recent reports in local newspapers, to the effect that an application has already been made by Central Railway plc, have added to the confusion, uncertainty and unhappiness, and especially the blight, along the chosen route. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and my constituents in Lutterworth and elsewhere that, as soon as an application is made to his Department, the House and the public will get to know about it and the public will have an opportunity to state their views? At the moment, there is tremendous uncertainty and unhappiness along the entire route from Kent to Leicestershire.
    Mr. Watts: If an application is made, it is virtually certain that it will be regarded as a scheme of national significance under the 1992 Act. The House would therefore have an opportunity to debate the principle of the scheme.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    New Parliamentary Building
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is his latest estimate of the cost of the new accommodation to be provided in phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. [7472]
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): The estimated cost of the new parliamentary building remains within the maximum risk estimate of £165 million which was approved by the House of Commons Commission in 1993. That figure excludes inflation in building costs between that date and 1999, when the building is scheduled for completion. As the House will realise, building cost inflation is difficult to predict.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament should not only erect a very fine new building but achieve value for money for the taxpayer? Will he provide the House with full details of this very expensive new building so that we can have a proper debate about it?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points—about the need for the building to be of high quality and yet not too extravagant. If he requires further
    404
    information, I shall be delighted to provide it for him. He will, I am sure, recall that there has been a full debate on the matter in the House, and I think that I am right in saying that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members were in favour of the building going ahead.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members are still working in offices, with members of their staff, in conditions that are wholly illegal? Given that not 100 yd from here there is another, largely unused Chamber with many offices around it, will he invite his honourable—in the full sense—and noble Friends to vacate those premises until such time as all democratically elected Members of Parliament have proper office facilities of their own?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind suggestion, but I am not sure that I am the best person to undertake that rather sensitive and difficult task.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I accept that there must be value for money in any public sector or, indeed, private sector building project, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the new building is to be on one of the finest and most important sites in London and that it would be quite wrong for it to be built as cheaply as possible with poor quality materials? Does he agree that it is absolutely essential to use good quality materials so that the building will last for all time?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend, with his architectural experience, puts his finger on the main point. It is essential that we do not ruin this very fine site so near the Palace of Westminster. I hope that the right balance has been achieved and that we shall have a building of high quality at reasonable cost.

    Works of Art
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent provisions have been made in the past two financial years for acquisitions of works of art. [7474]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The financial provision for works of art in 1994–95 was £37,000, including some £17,000 specifically for 7 Millbank. In 1995–96, the provision is £50,000.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer? He will be aware of the admirable work done by the House of Commons Works of Art Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), especially in commissioning works to fill gaps that have been identified for this century. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Commission will seek adequate funding for the new parliamentary building so that similar gaps do not appear in the next century?
    Mr. Beith: The experience of 7 Millbank and 1 Parliament street suggests that the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee will try to meet reasonable requirements to display good works of art in the new building. I know that the Works of Art Committee works hard and drives a hard bargain on behalf of the House in trying to make that possible.

    Disabled Visitors' Facilities
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has had about facilities for disabled constituents visiting and lobbying hon. Members. [7476]
    Mr. Beith: In the past 12 months, I have received representations from nine hon. Members in the form of parliamentary questions on the subject.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are several problems for disabled people who come to the House of Commons? Although it is a good idea to put them in Westminster Hall when it is raining so that they can get out of the bad weather, it is also important for disabled people to have the same rights as others to get into Central Lobby to lobby Members of Parliament. Is it not time that work was done to provide ramps at St. Stephen's Entrance and Central Lobby to give disabled people the same rights as others?
    Another place to put disabled people has just crossed my mind: we could stick them in the House of Lords as there are now moves to get rid of the peers.
    Mr. Beith: The House's advisers on such matters, and the Committees involved, have not been convinced that it would be possible to put ramps up to Central Lobby from St. Stephen's Entrance, and we have gone to considerable trouble to provide alternative routes.
    It is possible to accommodate a larger number of people in Westminster Hall than can be accommodated in Central Lobby at any time. Those facilities were appreciated.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that proper thought is being given to providing toilets and catering facilities for disabled people who come to Westminster Hall? They are often uncomfortable, and something should he done about it.
    Mr. Beith: The object of the Commission is to ensure that disabled people can gain access to all necessary parts of the House, including the restaurants and catering facilities. A great deal of work has gone on, including work to improve lifts so that they are suitable for disabled people. The Commission, when presented with practical proposals that are of help to disabled people, has never hesitated to seek the finance to get them under way.

    Smoking
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission will introduce a smoking policy into the office areas of the parliamentary estate. [7477]
    Mr. Beith: The policy on smoking in offices of hon. Members and their staff is a matter for the Administration Committee, not the Commission. The Commission's policy, promulgated through the heads of Departments, is directed at discouraging smoking by its employees. It is left to individual heads of Departments to make arrangements by mutual agreement with staff for the restriction of smoking in offices. A separate and more stringent policy is, of course, applied in the Refreshment Department.
    Mrs. Campbell: As the dangers of passive smoking are now so well documented, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is appropriate to protect the employees of the House of Commons from passive smoking, for instance in the Library area and in office areas occupied by right hon. and hon. Members? Is it right that people in their workplace should be forced to breathe in the smoke of other people?
    Mr. Beith: I do not think that it is right for people in their working environment to be forced to inhale smoke from other people. The Commission has not been notified of any case in which members of its staff are required to work in environments where smoking takes place. If there is an example, I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would draw it to my attention.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Although I do not pretend to defend smoke-filled offices or rooms in the Palace of Westminster, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we would be far better off continuing the present policy of designating areas for smoking, so that members of staff have the right to choose?
    Mr. Beith: My understanding is that in the Departments of the House members of staff do not inflict smoking on others, and where other occupants of an office are non-smokers, or simply prefer people not to smoke in the office, those smokers do not smoke there and seek suitable places to do so.

    HMSO (Privatisation)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received on the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [7479]
    Mr. Beith: None, apart from those received during the debate on the privatisation of HMSO on 18 December 1995.
    Mrs. Clwyd: When the only HMSO bookshop in Wales was shut, people were told to go to Bristol if they wanted to use HMSO's services. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the same thing will not happen now and that the network of bookshops providing HMSO services will remain the same and in the same place?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission cannot take responsibility for HMSO's retail network or the arrangements it has with retailers. The letter sent from Madam Speaker to the Ministry concerned contained the clear views of HMSO on how the House's requirements must be met. It has insisted at every stage that those requirements will be met. At the end of the day, it reserves the right to make whatever arrangements are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the House's publishing requirements are properly met.

    Committees (Composition)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the operation of the Standing Orders governing composition of Committees. [7481]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I believe that the Standing Orders in general are operating satisfactorily, although some concerns have been expressed about the operation of Standing Order No. 86 in relation to a Standing Committee on a Welsh Bill. If the hon. Gentleman has some particular cause for concern, perhaps he could let me know.
    Mr. Winnick: Standing Order No. 86 mentions the composition of Committees in relation to the House. Is it not a fact that the Government's overall majority has been reduced from 21 after the general election to just three now? Given that the Government's majority will be still less soon, even without further defections and the effect of Lady Thatcher's speech last week, why do the Government not do what the country desperately wants, and call an early general election now?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the House spent some time on 11 January 1995 debating the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86 in particular circumstances. Beyond that, even the hon. Gentleman's wishful thinking will not have led him to expect me to comment on such a hypothesis.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in relation to Committees, what is most offensive is the behaviour of those Members who get elected on one ticket and then switch to another without being willing to fight a by-election? The electorate of Torridge and West Devon want such a by-election.
    Mr. Newton: I have heard that view expressed in a number of quarters.

    Parliamentary Business
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are currently in place to announce the dates for all parliamentary business for 1996. [7482]
    Mr. Newton: In my weekly business statement I announce business for the following week and give what information I can about business in the second week. Details of that second week's business are, of course, necessarily provisional and subject to change. I announced the proposed dates of the Easter recess on 22 November and I hope also to make an early announcement about the Whitsun recess.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not want the Leader of the House to think that I am keen that there should be parliamentary business for the entire year. On the assumption that there may be such business, and building on the good work that the right hon. Gentleman has done in office, which has
    408
    been accepted around the House, does he think that we will soon be like all other orderly institutions such as schools, colleges and universities in publishing an annual timetable with annual holiday dates, fixed in advance, and annual dates fixed in advance for events such as the Budget and other major events of the parliamentary year? Can we behave in the near future like most other responsible public institutions?
    Mr. Newton: May I express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for the kindness of his introductory remarks? For the moment, I wish to proceed by consolidating on what I have achieved rather than engaging in the kind of further radicalism for which the hon. Gentleman calls.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that parliamentary business for 1996 will, before the end of the year, once again include the Budget? That would enable us most fully to discuss the policies of the Opposition, which would result in enormous tax increases.
    Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's warm anticipation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's next Budget.

    EU Institutions
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has had regarding the importance of access by parliamentarians to EU institutions and to other European Union parliaments. [7484]
    Mr. Newton: I have not had any recent representations on that matter.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Lord President will be aware that many Labour Members who are pro-European are pro a democratic Europe, but not an Executive-driven Europe, and we believe that it is about time that domestic Parliaments' legislatures had access to Europe's institutions and not the measly one trip a year that is the current ration.
    Mr. Newton: Over recent years, I have heard a number of suggestions on this matter, but none so far that seem to be sensible in relation to the purpose that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Mr. Wilkinson: One trip a year is sufficient to understand what the purpose of the European Parliament is. Even to a casual visitor, it looks to be a towering Babel of neo-fascist proportions.
    Mr. Newton: Knowing what I have heard over the years of my hon. Friend's views on these matters, I doubt whether he would have needed even one trip to form that conclusion.

Personal Statement
3.30 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): On Tuesday last—9 January—I answered a private notice question from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the handcuffing of prisoners who attend hospital. It was in particular reference to the treatment of a prisoner from Holloway prison who had attended Whittington hospital to give birth. During that answer, I told the House that no concerns had been registered by the hospital about Holloway practice. I did so on the explicit advice of the Prison Service.
On 11 January, I received a letter from Baroness Hayman, chairman of the Whittington Hospital NHS trust, in which she told me that I had been misinformed about the hospital's position. She said that the chief executive of the hospital had written to the governor of Holloway on 31 August last year to convey the concerns of the staff of the maternity unit.
As a result, I have now personally reviewed all the correspondence between the Whittington and Holloway. With his letter of 31 August to the prison, the chief executive forwarded a letter that he had received from his director of women's health, and that did express concerns over the practice.
The letter of 31 August was followed by further correspondence and meetings. The latest exchange was a letter received at the prison last Tuesday, of which I was unaware until after my reply to the private notice question. That letter was from the chief executive to the new governor offering to discuss a number of options.
I deeply regret that the advice that I had been given about this correspondence—and which I in turn gave to the House in all good faith—was wrong and I offer my unreserved apologies to the House.
Madam Speaker: The House will be most grateful to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it would be improper to question the contents of a personal statement, but what
410
we have just heard is a statement, not a personal statement, and its contents should have been subject to questioning by the House of Commons. We have just seen an abuse of a personal statement in the House.
Madam Speaker: That is not at all correct. I accepted it as a personal statement. As such, it had to be heard in silence and with no comment afterwards.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) refer to the European Parliament, in which elected representatives from this country sit, as a neo-fascist institution, a description endorsed by the Lord President of the Council. Given that the Prime Minister wants closer co-operation between the House and the European Parliament to oversee European matters, I invite the Lord President not to endorse his hon. Friend's description of the European Parliament as a neo-fascist institution.
Mr. Newton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman will find as soon as he reads the text in Hansard, I in no way endorsed that comment.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I accept fully your ruling that personal statements cannot be questioned, I seek your advice on a matter relating to the shackling of pregnant women in Holloway, or anyone else. What methods are open to Members who would like to question the Minister of State and her odious boss on that uncivilised and barbaric practice?
Madam Speaker: Adjournment debates are open to all hon. Members, as are parliamentary questions to Home Office Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows the methods that we have in the House whereby Back Benchers can question Ministers on a variety of matters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I politely ask you whether the statement by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), was seen by you before she made it?
Madam Speaker: Yes, it was.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.35 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In his three Budgets, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has built the foundations for sustainable growth, with low inflation, which will lead to higher living standards for all in this country. The economic fundamentals of the economy are now firmly established. Output is almost 6 per cent. higher than its previous peak, with steady growth forecast to continue. Inflation is enjoying its best run for almost 50 years and we are on course to meet our target of underlying inflation of 2½ per cent. or less. Unemployment has fallen by more than 730,000, with 250,000 new jobs created in the past year. Interest rates are low and people's mortgage rates are at their lowest for 30 years.
  The 1995 Budget, of which the Bill is the central part, maintains the strategy. It takes no risks with the recovery, but starts to cut taxes, based on the good control of spending. It makes real further progress towards our goal of making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. It keeps us on course for a low-spending, low-tax economy which fosters enterprise and lets people take their own decisions with their own money, in complete contrast to the Opposition's plans.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Why did the Budget not contain any strategy for Britain's manufacturing industry?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Absolutely central to this year's Budget and to previous Budgets is a strategy for Britain's industry: a strategy of lower interest rates, an enterprise economy, deregulation and competition—all the things about which the Labour party is suspicious in its bones.
  We are on course to reduce the share of national income taken by the state to below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product by 1997–98, making Britain the best place in Europe in which to employ people and to invest. That has been done while finding additional resources for the services that people care most about—the health service, schools and the police. There is another £900 million for schools, there are another 5,000 police officers and there are almost 4,000 more prison places. There are 10,000 extra closed-circuit television cameras in town centres. Current spending on the NHS is to increase by £1¼ billion next year—1½ per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that people care very much for their university sector? Does he believe that a 7 per cent. cut in the universities' budgets will help either higher education or an enterprise economy, let alone the enterprise centre of Europe? Universities are increasingly at the cutting edge of the new technology that produces the wealth creation ability of our country.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point to which I shall return. Although the Labour party has not voted against the tax cuts, it opposes each of the spending restraints on which those tax cuts are based. That is the fundamental incoherence at the heart of the Opposition's position. The universities, which are well placed and skilful in terms of raising money from the private market, have been required to do more and I am sure that they will be able to do so.
  To achieve the strategy that I have set out, we have had to take tough decisions, one of which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has just referred to, about priorities and about reducing expenditure elsewhere. We aim to reduce fraud in social security, for example, by £2½ billion a year within the next three years. We have redoubled our pressure on central Government costs. We plan a reduction in the real costs of Whitehall of more than 12 per cent. over the period. Although much more can of course be done—by greater efficiency, competitive tendering, contracting out, and increasingly by the private finance initiative and challenge funding—tough decisions on priorities must be made; reining back individual programmes that are not of the highest priority.
  Mr. David Winnick: Although the Budget was cheered to the echo by Tory Members of Parliament at the time, it has been a total flop in the country. Will the Minister explain why that is so?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am in danger of reading out the several pages of congratulations from industry and others, including the Confederation of British Industry, the heads of many great firms and some editorials of newspapers sympathetic to the Labour party, with which I have been provided, but in order not to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, I shall not do so now.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is always helpful. I will always give way to him—not always, but mostly.
  Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister received any letters from any prison officers about the state of their jobs? If the Budget was so good and the country's economy is in such good shape, why have the Government announced that 3,000 prison officers are to get the sack? Surely when the Home Secretary is talking about increasing the prison population, it is scandalous to be putting 3,000 people on the dole if, as the Minister is saying, the country's economy is in good shape. How has that happened?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman straightforwardly, openly and honestly speaks—and I think would be proud to speak—for the voice of the public sector trade unions on this matter and many others. I think that he would regard it as an insult if I said that he did anything other. We take a different approach. We believe that there are major efficiency gains to be made in the prison services as elsewhere. Private sector prisons have demonstrated greater efficiency than those retained and run directly in the traditional way. That is why we can achieve the objective of more prison places, which we unfortunately need, while making economies.

  413
  Every one of those economies—Labour Members have been helpful enough to demonstrate that already in the debate—is opposed openly, or sometimes after talking to the pressure groups concerned, by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. Without those economies, the tax cuts in the Budget are not affordable. Those tax cuts are right for the economy. They build incentives and encourage enterprise. They help individuals, families, pensioners, business men and entrepreneurs to keep more of what they earn or have built up through work, saving and creating wealth and employment. Without the cuts in spending plans, which finance the tax cuts, those tax cuts would not be affordable.
  That is the hypocrisy of Labour Members: supporting the tax cuts yet arguing day after day against the measures that make those tax cuts affordable.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What good are tax cuts to people out of work? Is not the Government's economic strategy about having a pool of unemployed people? What will the Budget do—and what is the Minister going to do—to create jobs?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We believe that the way in which to create jobs—this is perhaps one of the real divides between the Conservative party and the Labour party—is to make it economic and affordable to employ people, by cutting the costs of employment. We have therefore achieved the lowest level of unemployment of the big economies in Europe. All the policies for which the Labour party argues would turn that round and send our unemployment towards the levels in France, Germany, Spain and the other countries in Europe where such policies, which make it difficult to employ people, are followed.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and especially Opposition Members who consistently sit below the Gangway believe that the state can create jobs.
  Mr. Skinner: Of course.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is the proper divide between us. "Of course", says the hon. Member for Bolsover. We do not believe that. We believe that enterprise creates jobs. That is the heart of our strategy.
  Part of the overall economic strategy was the cut in interest rates announced in December. That reduction, fully consistent with meeting our inflation target, means that mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest level for a generation. There is more good news ahead. In the spring, households in England and Wales will receive a rebate of over £50 on their electricity bills following the recent flotation of the national grid. There are also maturing tax-exempt special savings accounts, or TESSAs—a Government invention—to consider, with investments worth about £15 billion being unfrozen in the first quarter of this year. That is all in addition to the tax cuts announced in the Budget.
  A number of surveys show that the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about the growth of consumer spending and of the economy this year look more and more justified. The House can be assured that the strategy embodied in the Bill will keep the British economy strong and that it promises excellent prospects for the coming year—the fourth year of growth since the recession.
  414
  My right hon. and learned Friend had three main aims in his Budget tax measures—first, to help people to keep more of what they earn and save; secondly, to protect family savings; and, thirdly, to continue to reinforce Britain's status as the enterprise centre of Europe.
  Mr. Skinner: Sounds good.
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is good.
  The Finance Bill contributes to all my right hon. and learned Friend's aims. It starts with a cheerful clause on which I am sure I can unite the House—the first cut in whisky tax for 100 years. As a former Agriculture Minister, I know the importance of that great industry for both Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, so there could not be a better way to start a Finance Bill.
  After dealing with various other duties, the Bill reduces income tax. When we came to power, the basic rate of income tax was 33 per cent. and the higher rates rose to 83 per cent. on earnings and 98 per cent. on what Labour called unearned income—an unpleasant euphemism for the interest on people's savings. That was the punitive tax system under Labour. It was hostile to people who wanted to work hard and do well and savage for people who wanted to set aside a little for their old age. During the past 16 years, Conservative Governments have cut the basic rate to 25 per cent. and the higher rate to 40 per cent. We have stopped the surcharge on savers. The Bill goes further and takes significant steps towards the Government's clear target of moving towards a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax as soon as possible. Clause 64 reduces the basic rate to 24 per cent. It also widens the lower rate band by £700—£500 more than indexation. Clause 65 and schedule 5 reduce the tax on savings income to 20 per cent. for basic rate taxpayers. Clause 66 increases personal allowances by £100 more than indexation.
  In all, 26 million income tax payers and 14 million savers will be better off and 220,000 people—low earners and pensioners—will be freed from tax altogether.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: In view of the rosy picture that the Minister is painting, can he explain the persistent absence of any feel-good factor among the people whom we represent? More specifically, can he explain the results of an opinion poll among parents who were asked whether they thought their children faced a better or worse future than they had faced, when 18 per cent. said that they thought it would be better, but 63 per cent. thought it would be worse? Is not it a unique achievement of the Government that under them, alone among Governments in our history, people are now rather fearful of being young?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the 1970s when the Labour party ran the country and we were genuinely at the bottom of all the league tables, with about 1 per cent. growth a year and virtually no growth in real personal disposable incomes. People's future and their hopes for the future are far better based today than they were under Labour.
  In parallel with the income tax changes, 3 million self-employed taxpayers will benefit under the Bill. The 1p off the small companies rate of corporation tax in clause 70 will benefit more than 300,000 small companies. The extension of the business rates transitional scheme—which is not in the Bill—will help

  415
  800,000 businesses. Those measures, together with the changes to inheritance tax in clause 169 onwards, and to capital gains tax in clauses 163 and 164, offer practical help to businesses, as does the cut in the employers' national insurance charge.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the impact of the landfill tax on port dredgings and, in particular, the operation of the Manchester ship canal. The idea behind the landfill tax is clearly environmental, with the aim of discouraging tipping. However, in the case of port dredgings—and in particular the Manchester ship canal—there is nowhere else to tip because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not allow tipping in the North sea or St. George's channel. The impact of the tax, as conceived in the Bill, will be a £4.7 million additional burden each year, which will drive the company into deficit, could lead it to bankruptcy and could result in the flooding of many tens of thousands of homes in the Greater Manchester area.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, who is a powerful voice for Manchester and the region, makes a point that will be properly debated on the Floor of the House, at which point it will be carefully considered by my hon. Friends and me.
  The Budget proposed two sets of measures to help to protect family savings and addressed many families' concerns about the cost of caring for elderly relatives in residential or nursing homes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced that he would exempt from tax a range of insurance policies that provide long-term care benefits, and that was widely welcomed. Those measures are contained in clause 134.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Chief Secretary explain the Government's housing benefit policy, which I gather will double the rents of the poorest people of this country in many council areas?
  Mr. Waldegrave: There is no need for that to happen. As far as I recall, the public expenditure settlement does not propose an additional guideline rent increase. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman is correct, but it depends on the behaviour of individual local authorities.
  My right hon. and learned Friend explained that from April—and sooner if practicable—the Government would more than treble to £10,000 the level of assets below which people would be required to make no contribution from their capital to the cost of long-term care, and would double the upper threshold above which full contributions are required to £16,000. That is not in the Bill as it is a public spending measure, but I can reassure the House that the necessary preparations are being made and that the regulations will be introduced as soon as possible.
  The Budget also addressed the concerns that people have about their ability to pass on more to their children and their families. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is a myth that inheritance tax affects only the very rich, who are better placed to dispose of their assets before death. It is middle Britain—those with a house and a few modest investments—that is under threat as a result of inheritance tax. Clause 169 alleviates that by increasing the threshold from £154,000 to £200,000. The number paying inheritance tax will be reduced by a third. Only one in 45 estates will now pay any tax, and all estates will pay less.
  416
  To continue our successful campaign to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe, the Government aim to have a tax system that encourages wealth creation and keeps business taxes and employment costs low. New taxes are seldom seen to help in that, but the landfill tax does. It shifts costs from making it expensive to employ people to making it more expensive to create waste. That is obviously good environmentally, and it enables us to cut employers' national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. to 10 per cent. from April 1997.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: May I declare an interest, as I am a former director of the Manchester ship canal company? May I follow up what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said? The landfill tax may be an additional tax, but it is certainly a further burden on business. If such dredging is to be environmentally sound, should it not take place ashore rather than out to sea? The Minister said that the matter will be debated. Is he sympathetic to the view that dredging that is carried out ashore should be exempt from landfill tax?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will not say off the cuff whether I am sympathetic to that view or not. The debate is clearly a serious one, and it is interesting that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is backing my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who he called his hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not giving a dangerous implication for the future. In this instance, I think that that would be very unlikely.
  The cut in national insurance contributions reduces by£500 million the cost of employing people in this country. This contrasts starkly with Labour's plans, every one of which—including the social chapter and the minimum wage—would make it more expensive to employ people, and thus put unemployment here up to French, Spanish and German levels. More jobs means real stakeholding, to coin a phrase.
  The next related measure builds on our achievement of giving employees a true stake in their companies by employee share ownership. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of changes in the Budget which are designed to encourage more companies to set up employee share schemes, particularly for their lower-paid employees, and to encourage employees to participate in those schemes. Clauses 102 to 111 set out the necessary changes to the law. As the chief executive of the organisation Proshare said:
  "This is the best budget for employee share ownership that we have seen in many years".
  The Finance Bill is not just about the headline Budget measures, important as those are. It is about the good management of the tax system. The Bill contains measures to modernise and simplify the tax system and, like every other Finance Bill, to block loopholes. Clauses 72 to 97, for example, introduce a new system for tax and corporate loan relationships. The existing relationships and arrangements are a constraint on business, but they also give some businesses the opportunity to avoid tax.
  The changes in the Bill will bring the tax system into line with commercial reality and will enable companies to organise their affairs more flexibly. It may seem unlikely at first sight, but those clauses also constitute a

  417
  simplification of the tax system. Although the Bill contains almost 100 pages of measures on that subject, much of this consists of transitional arrangements. Once the new system is bedded in, we will have replaced 100 pages of tax law with 40 pages, which is a net reduction of 60 pages. Another large and complex block of the Bill—clauses 112 to 133—sets out further provisions on self-assessment and completes what was done in the last two Finance Acts.
  Our Finance Bill takes forward a coherent and successful strategy for the British economy. We heard no alternative strategy from Labour in the Budget debate, which was not surprising. We are used to that, and I doubt whether we will hear a strategy today. The truth is that Labour's approach is riddled with contradictions. The first contradiction—
  Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me develop the argument a little. The first contradiction, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—whom I do not see in his place today—said with his usual candour, is that the Leader of the Opposition's main strategy is to say anything he can think of to reassure Tory voters. His latest ploy is to start praising no less a person than Lady Thatcher and the measures on privatisation and trade union reform, among others, which she took in the 1980s.
  Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), with his league tables, has said that everything that has happened since 1979 has been a failure. An article in The Wall Street Journal last Saturday said that that was both "contradictory and devious" and that:
  "If the policies didn't work, why does a socialist party need to perform ideological contortions by adopting them? If they have been successful"—
  the article argued that they had been, and I would certainly agree—
  "wouldn't the debate over the real policy options available to Britain become more informed and transparent"
  if Labour openly admitted it?
  The second contradiction is that Labour has lost its nerve about admitting the higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxation which follows from everything its spokesmen and spokeswomen say. I shall take one example, of many.
  I am sorry to keep picking on the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) in this matter, but unlike most Labour Front Benchers she at least shows signs of life and says things. In the Budget debate, she forced me to withdraw my disgraceful allegation that she had called for more spending on health, which I did at once—although the idea that she is not in favour of more health spending strikes those of us in Bristol who have heard her on such matters as odd.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South has had something else to say, this time about education. She has written round Bristol saying that another £16 million is needed for education in the city. [Interruption.] I shall not withdraw this one because I have the letter here. That letter, from a Front-Bench spokesperson, is presumably at least some sort of commitment. It has inevitably been taken as a commitment by the school governors and parents who received her letter.
  418
  The increase, however, surely cannot be just for Bristol, however faithful the hon. Member for Bristol, South is to her constituents. If she is promising a cap which allows an 8 per cent. increase in spending for Bristol, in all fairness she must promise the same for other local authorities, which would be £2.3 billion on public spending—or a penny ha'penny on income tax.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: I have to clarify and correct what the Chief Secretary has said. The Chief Secretary wrote to every board of school governors in Bristol to say that Bristol had an extra £4 million to spend on education because the SSA had increased by that much. The Chief Secretary did not understand that Bristol was already spending £16 million above its SSA on education. There was therefore still a shortfall. I have merely pointed out that he does not understand education spending in the city that he claims to represent, and which he does so poorly.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I would never say to an hon. Member that he or she did not represent their constituents properly. I am sure that the hon. Lady represents her constituency admirably; I have often heard it said by her predecessor, who has expressed to me very interesting opinions on that matter.
  I believe it was another of Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe former colleagues, Lord Healey, who said that when one is in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. The hon. Lady made it clear in her letter, which I have before me, that she has given the nod and the wink to the people in Bristol that the amount spent on education is inadequate for the needs of Bristol.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Why is the right hon. Gentleman picking on her?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I mention it, and I pick on the hon. Member for Bristol, South, only because I happen to be familiar with her argument—
  Ms Primarolo: Because I sent the letter to you.
  Mr. Waldegrave: And because she did me the courtesy of sending it to me.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends know of many other examples throughout the country of local spokesmen saying to the pressure groups, "Yes; more money" after which, if we challenge them in the House, Labour Front Bench spokesmen—sometimes the same people—say, "Oh no, we did not mean that". It would be braver, and Labour Members sitting below the Gangway would like it, if Labour Front Bench spokesmen said, "Let us have the spend", because that is what the spokesmen below the Gangway say. It cannot be only for Bristol.
  Mr. Betts rose—
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
  Mr. Betts: While he is discussing education, will the Chief Secretary reflect on the evidence that he gave to the Treasury Select Committee a couple of weeks ago? When we asked how that extra so-called "money for education" had been calculated, he could not say that it was in any way related to the needs of education, to the additional pupils who will attend schools next year, to the teachers'

  419
  pay award, to inflation or to any other meaningful figure that affects daily life in our schools. He simply said that that was a figure that had been arrived at during a meeting between himself and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  Is it any wonder, therefore, that when letters such as the one that he sent to schools are received, schools throughout the country do not respond to them as any more than Conservative propaganda unrelated to the needs that school governors, parents and teachers experience in our schools today?
  Mr. Waldegrave: There is another example, coming from the former sponsor of the great student games in Sheffield. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that more should be spent on education this year? If so, let him say so; but he will not say so. Is he saying perhaps that too much is being spent? He will not say so. That is at the heart of the equivocation that gives so much pain to Labour Members sitting below the Gangway. Labour Front Bench spokesmen will not say that they will spend more on anything; they have not voted against the tax cuts. They are therefore adopting our strategy, and the hon. Member for Bolsover is in a high old rage.
  Mr. Skinner: No; I am not. I feel no pain. I have listened carefully to the exchange. I have reached the conclusion that what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said was not dissimilar to what a lot of Labour Members have said—that when the Tory Government said in their Budget that they were going to increase the amount of money for education, we found out in 24 hours, having considered the facts and figures, that schools would be about £40 per pupil worse off than they were before.
  I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to understand that. He went to Eton. He is educated beyond his intelligence.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is an unwarranted attack on the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
  The hon. Member for Bolsover makes my argument for me. He is unwilling to say—or perhaps he is willing to say, but Labour Front Bench spokesmen certainly are not—whether Labour intends to spend more on education this year. The Front Bench spokesmen will not say.
  Mr. Skinner: I voted for that.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman had the consistency to vote against the income tax cuts, and that makes him someone who it is at least worth debating with. It is not worth debating with Labour Front Bench spokesmen because, although they sometimes quietly say that they want more spent, they did not vote against the income tax cuts.
  It is not really fair to blame the hon. Member for Bristol, South—or even the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who is not in his place—for the incoherence at the heart of Labour's position. They would probably run their party differently if they had the chance. The incoherence comes from the top—what the hon. Member for Bolsover, in a memorable phrase, called "the sirloin tendency" in the Labour party.
  We all know why the "stakeholder" soundbite was deployed. It is because it can mean two completely different things to two different audiences. To the floating
  420
  voter, it can be made to sound like the good old Conservative idea of the property-owning democracy—a central theme of Toryism, from Lord Randolph Churchill via Rab Butler to Lady Thatcher and the present Prime Minister—wider ownership of homes, shares and pension funds. There is nothing threatening in that, which is why the phrase was used.
  To the soft left the phrase can be dressed up to sound like Will Hutton or Andrew Gamble or any of the old leftist think-tankers—a miasma of failed corporatist wheezes and schemes all involving more legislation and costs imposed by politicians and civil servants on business. It is the same old stuff that Labour sought, with disastrous results, to introduce in the 1970s, when this country was at the bottom of the league tables.
  When the Leader of the Opposition is challenged, as usual he slips away. Sir David Frost is told that "stakeholder" is only a slogan. It turns out that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is in his place, are chairing working groups on corporate taxation and corporate governance which involve steering companies in the way that the Labour party, not the markets, want them to go on matters of dividend policy, investment, takeover policy and relationships with employees and suppliers—the same old issues.
  How familiar it all sounds—it is familiar from the old days of Labour in the 1960s and 1970s. That is where we should be again if Labour ever came to power: there would be the old distrust of free enterprise; the old meddling from Whitehall and the old intervention. It would be a return to the old ways of decline and failure.
  Our strategy is different: we believe in enterprise, competition and freedom—those are the only ways to achieve jobs and growth. The Bill embodies our principles and our practices. It is not just a matter of slogans, but of practical action. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a second reading to the Finance Bill because it fails to address the needs of the country for long-term investment, jobs and fairness in the interests of opportunities for all, and in particular does not include a welfare to work strategy paid for by a windfall levy on the monopolistic profits of the privatised utilities, fairness measures to cut VAT on fuel for domestic and charitable use or to implement in full the Greenbury Report, investment measures including adequate reform of the Private Finance Initiative and does not address the burdens on tax-payers, especially small businesses and the self-employed arising from the introduction of self-assessment."
  The Finance Bill is the dull product of a tired and divided party—and it shows. Like the Budget to which it gives effect, the Bill fails to match the challenges that confront our country or the potential of our people. Our amendment sets out the central grounds of our argument: the Bill fails to address the pressing needs of the country.
  The Chief Secretary's speech said much more about the Government's complacency than the Bill's content. The House could have expected more than muddled quotations from The Wall Street Journal and unfounded allegations about nods and winks in Bristol. Even as he spoke, his claims were challenged by the report published today by the Treasury Select Committee, which represents a damning indictment of the Government's economic record.

  421
  The report underlines concern on the economic strategy being pursued by the Government. On the latest figures for growth for 1996, the Committee observed "scepticism rather than assent". The report calls into question the basis of the Chancellor's investment forecast; it accuses him of wishful thinking and over-optimism, grounded in his forecast last year of a 10.75 per cent. increase in business investment, which turned out to be 3.25 per cent. The Committee also remains sceptical on the investment forecasts this year.
  More accusations of wishful thinking occur over the Treasury's forecasts for the housing market. The forecasts were criticised for putting a gloss on "major areas of concern". The report questions the Government's record on public finances, citing the slippage in the public sector borrowing requirement from the previous year's estimates as
  "the biggest disappointment in this year's Budget".
  The Chief Secretary's claims that all is well with the economy are contradicted by the Select Committee as well as by people's everyday experience and by the facts. He cannot be allowed to hide behind his carefully constructed smokescreen of selective statistics. He must explain why Britain still has 2.2 million people unemployed, why 800,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, and why 600,000 young people are without a job.
  The right hon. Gentleman must explain why people feel so insecure and why living standards fell last year as real disposable income in the third quarter was lower than at the beginning of the year. He must explain why housing repossessions were as high as 25,000 in the first half of 1995, and why negative equity continues to afflict more than 1 million home owners.
  The right hon. Gentleman makes claims, as the Government always do, about inward investment. They must explain why 1994 saw the lowest level of inward investment for eight years, and why outward investment in the first three quarters of 1995 exceeded inward investment by more than £6 billion as compared with the net inflow of £8 billion when his right hon. Friend became Prime Minister.
  Mr. Winnick: Apart from the devastation caused over the past 16 years in so many parts of the country, and certainly in the manufacturing sector in the west midlands, is my hon. Friend aware that, when I was out of the House during the 1970s, I worked in the Strand opposite the High Court, and that never once in all those years, in the day or the evening, did I see people sleeping on the streets or at Charing Cross station? When I go home in the evening after leaving here, I see a large number of people sleeping around the Strand and in Charing cross station simply because they have no alternative. Is that not one of the contrasts between the 1970s and now?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If everything is going so wonderfully, why are people sleeping in the streets and begging? Why is there such evidence of the breakdown of social cohesion and the fragmentation of our society as a consequence of the Government's divided policies?
  If everything is going so well on the economic front, why does Britain have the worst balance of trade figures for more than three years? Why do we have the lowest
  422
  share of world trade this century? If the British people were listening to the Chief Secretary, they would be asking why, if everything is on course, they are paying so much more tax now than when the Prime Minister promised tax cuts year on year at the last general election, and why the Chancellor is forced to double public borrowing for the rest of the decade compared with what he was planning just a year ago.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple but fundamental question in the hope that I get a simple and straightforward answer? Does he consider that the present level of Government expenditure is too high, too low or exactly right?
  Mr. Smith: Of course, the level of expenditure as a share of national product would be lower had the Government succeeded in reducing unemployment and removing the scandal of mass unemployment.
  Mr. Davies: Answer the question.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman tries to interrupt from a sedentary position. The House should know about the pamphlet that he is writing for the Macleod group on the benefits of European integration. Perhaps we should hear more about that.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Will the hon. Gentleman do my hon. Friend the courtesy of answering his question?
  Mr. Smith: I have answered his question. [Interruption.]
  If the Government are doing as well as the Chief Secretary claims in comparison to other countries, why, as the Governor of the Bank of England put it, are
  "the chances…against the Government achieving their inflation target"?
  Why are long-term interest rates so much higher in Britain than in Germany? Why has growth under the Government been lower in nearly all our main competitors, and why has Britain gone from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league?
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the OECD survey of the British economy said:
  "United Kingdom economic performance in 1994 was impressive"?
  Mr. Smith: The OECD statistics show that the performance of the United Kingdom economy falls well below that of our major competitors in long-term growth, investment and training in the skills essential to our future economic well-being.
  The Government's economic failure and incompetence have denied Britain the productive investment and quality training needed in today's global economy. They have secured insufficient capacity to get people into jobs and pay our way in the world and they have allowed an ever larger share of public spending to meet the costs of unemployment and poverty. The Government have taxed and borrowed hugely, not for investment in success, but to pay the bills of economic failure and social division.

  423
  It is against the test of a strategy for a strong economy and society that the Bill and the Government must be judged. We must judge what the Government have done for jobs, investment opportunities and fairness, and on each count they have failed.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: What is the hon. Gentleman's inflation target?
  Mr. Smith: We want sustainably low inflation. I have quoted the Governor of the Bank of England, who has forecast that the Government will not hit their inflation target. The way to meet that target is to ensure levels of investment and capacity that will lead to efficient production and the ability to expand supply to meet demand, without running into inflation problems or balance of payments constraints.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not understand the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). He asked whether the target of 2.5 per cent. or lower is adequate.
  Mr. Smith: The Government have demonstrated their unending confusion about what the inflation target really is, and the Chancellor has given various estimates. The Governor of the Bank of England has made it clear that the Government are not on course to hit their inflation target, because they have not taken the investment and training measures that we called for. They have not succeeded in getting people back to work to end the scandal whereby there are 1.2 million fewer people in work today than when the Prime Minister took office. One in five non-pensioner households has no one in work.
  The costs of unemployment and low income-related benefits are eating up more than twice the share of gross domestic product than when the Conservatives came to office. In those circumstances, Britain needs a welfare-to-work strategy in order to get people off benefits and into jobs. There is no such strategy in the Bill.
  Britain faces an investment crisis. Under this Government, Britain has fallen from 13th to 18th position in the world prosperity league. We are now 21st in the international league table for investment. Investment at this stage of the economic cycle is well below its level at a similar stage of any cycle this century.
  In its report published today, the Treasury Select Committee castigates the Chancellor for his over-optimistic business investment forecast last year. If the Chancellor got it wrong so badly last year, we must ask how people can be confident that he and the Chief Secretary are correct this year. The private finance initiative is held back by tendering costs, complexity and a lack of clear priorities. In the face of that, Britain needs a concerted strategy to increase productive and profitable long-term investment in order to secure sustainable growth, rising living standards, quality of life and public services for the future. There is no such investment strategy in the Bill.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Given the hon. Gentleman's concern about the present level of investment, does he think that interest rates are too high? Would he reduce them? Does he believe that interest rates are too high, too low or about right?
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I have already referred to the fact that, in Britain, long-term interest rates—which I am sure
  424
  the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will agree are a very important measure of the market's future economic estimates—are much higher than those in Germany. If I recall the figures correctly, interest rates in this country are more than 25 per cent. higher than those in Germany.
  We must decrease long-term interest rates and keep them low in order to create a low-inflation environment. That will be achieved through investment in capacity and training and the productivity and competitiveness of our economy, based on social cohesion and the knowledge that we, as members of society, depend one upon the other, economically and socially.
  The Conservative party used to appreciate that in the days when the Chief Secretary spoke of his enthusiasm for "one nation" Conservatism. However, the Conservatives have now abandoned that approach, in a laissez-faire setting where one is pitted against another. That division in our society is causing much damage.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Conservatives say that they are running the economy well—I do not want to take my hon. Friend too far down that road—but I remind him that the botch-up that they caused through the poll tax has cost taxpayers £14 billion and that black Wednesday cost them nearly £4 billion.
  Mr. Smith: Conservative Members and the Government have wasted incalculable sums on mistakes and disasters such as the poll tax and black Wednesday. They have failed to run the economy with a level of employment that can enable them to sustain healthy public finances. That is why they have been forced to raise taxes so much since the previous general election, so great is their failure on employment.
  The Bill fails the crucial tests of jobs, investment and fairness. It fails—as do the Government—to pull the country together with opportunities for all. Where Britain needs to work together to win in the face of global competition, what do Conservative Members have to offer? Nothing but introspection, in-fighting and division: left from right, Macleod group from Way Forward group; Euro-sceptics from Euro-enthusiasts; and today's Prime Minister is undermined by the previous Tory leader and by the next—all half-dozen of them.
  How ironic that the party that spent 16 years dividing the country is now applying the full force of that destructive talent on dividing itself. It is even fighting over the lurch to the right. Those who argue that it has gone too far confirm the people's verdict on the Tory record. Those who argue that it has not gone far enough confirm people's nightmare of any Tory future.
  No wonder the north Oxfordshire Conservatives recently started an appeal letter with the stirring words:
  "I am sure you will agree that the Conservative Party has taken a bit of a battering recently."
  That was before Lady Thatcher's speech. The letter continued:
  "We all need to draw on hidden strengths at some point in life, and that is why I am writing to you now".
  So well hidden were those hidden strengths that the letter could not say what they were. Still, we must have some sympathy for the poor, battered north Oxfordshire agent. After all, what hidden strengths might he have turned to? Loyalty? Abandoned in today's Conservative party, as the battle for the succession hots up. Unity?

  425
  A cowardly cop-out from the ideological firmament needed to distil Conservative purity. One-nation Conservatism? The ultimate dirty word—cover for no-nation Euro-subservience.
  The tragedy of today's Conservative party, in the Finance Bill and in everything else it does, is that it has allowed itself to be enticed down—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm, as I have just entered the Chamber, that we are discussing the Finance Bill? I have heard nothing to do with the Finance Bill for many minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber; he was here before I took over the Chair. I have been listening very carefully, and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has been in order. He referred to the Finance Bill. He nearly got outside it, but he referred to it, although very late.
  Mr. Smith: The tragedy of today's Conservative party, in the Finance Bill and in everything else it does, is that it has allowed itself to be enticed down the road from one-nation Conservatism to the unthinking, uncaring free-for-all, where the only duty of Government is to hang on to power.
  Lady Thatcher can talk. There are a few Conservative Members who know that she started it all when she said that there was no such thing as society. When social cohesion is weakened, as the Government have weakened it, and when broken promises, incompetence and weak leadership destroy confidence in what we can achieve together, there is nothing left but everyone out for themselves. That is how we end up with a Government who stumble from one crisis to another, whose only abiding function is survival, where the dismal calculus of avoiding defeat for the party always comes before the needs of the country.
  Demoralised Conservative party members will search in vain for any hidden strengths, in the Finance Bill or anywhere else. I know Conservative Members who believe that rarely has so much paper, as in the Bill, included so little substance. It is extraordinary that a Government who are so long on the rhetoric of tax and regulation burdens on business should add so copiously to tax legislation: the longest Finance Bills ever produced have been introduced by them since the last general election.
  Last year, we joined the hon. Member for Beaconsfield in defeating the Government on tax simplification; yet this year's Bill—the second longest presented to the House since the last election—shows how much further there is to go. According to the Financial Times, the former president of the Institute of Taxation read the Bill with "resignation and desperation", because of the underlying complexity of British tax law.
  Although, for the first time, nine clauses and three schedules were drafted by private sector practitioners, there is no evidence that they were able to improve on the work of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Chancellor's separate Budget proposal to rewrite the revenue tax code in plain English followed our own calls for simplification, and
  426
  we support it, but the House will have to give careful consideration to how that is to be done. We shall need to examine how far clarification of the language can be achieved if the underlying tax structures and the literal interpretation of tax law are left unchanged. We shall seek further debate on that in Committee.
  We shall scrutinise the Bill closely, and we shall take every opportunity to improve it as we improved last year's Bill. We shall continue to expose the Government's failure to implement the Greenbury report fully, or to get to grips with abuses in the privatised utilities. We shall press for full disclosure of directors' pension entitlements. Disclosure and transparency are sound principles, in the interests of shareholders and regulators as well as the general public.
  We shall raise important questions in regard to the way in which the privatised utilities' affairs are being obscured from public scrutiny when they are incorporated as subsidiaries of larger groups. It cannot be right that, as the water regulator puts it,
  "Without a listing requirement, a utility's operations could take place in darkness only penetrable by the regulator."
  There is no doubt that the public want proper accountability and an end to abuses, and it is up to the House to ensure that they get that. It was the Labour party—speaking up for public opinion—that forced the need for action on to the agenda. We shall keep up the pressure until the people are given a fair deal.
  We welcome the Government's climbdown on share options, but we shall scrutinise the detail of the Bill's proposals very closely. Our aim will be to promote wider shareholding and make opportunities available to employees, while ending the excesses that brought the executive share option scheme into such disrepute. We shall challenge aspects of the Bill that add to the burdens on business or damage job generation. We shall question the way in which the landfill levy has been introduced, and ask why the Chancellor described the cut in employers' national insurance contributions as a "matching cut" in his Budget speech, but does not match the timing in introducing those measures into law.
  We are aware of the enormous challenge—already turning into an enormous burden—that businesses, especially small businesses and the self-employed, will face in the next year and beyond because of the way in which tax self-assessment is being introduced, and especially because it is being introduced at the same time as the shift from previous-year to current-year assessment. For a long time, Labour has warned of the enormous difficulties and costs that that can cause.
  We are talking about a big switch in responsibilities from the Government to taxpayers, some 9 million of whom will become responsible for calculating their own tax liability. For businesses starting up, it involves a period of double taxation of profits which will be relieved only in future years; it puts new burdens on employers, who will have to take responsibility for quantifying the taxable value of benefits that they provide for employees, and who at the same time will face a new penalty regime for their pains, as unpaid tax collectors.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was just about to tell us, but what would he do differently? Would he postpone self-assessment for another year?
  Mr. Smith: I was coming to that. There is a strong case for postponing the introduction of parts or all of

  427
  self-assessment. We shall table amendments in Committee, which is the proper place, in an attempt to relieve the burden that the proposal will undoubtedly impose on small businesses and the self-employed. We think that the Government are papering over the cracks and understating the complications and costs of the new system to the taxpayer.
  The Inland Revenue's own compliance cost assessment admits to extra costs of between £130 million and £250 million a year, but assumes that they are going to be offset by savings on estimated assessments, postponements and appeals. Even if that is right—it sounds rather optimistic to me—there will be a period of double jeopardy as the new system comes in. The self-employed will still be tied up in delays, appeals and postponements under the old system, while they are simultaneously having to gear up to deal with the burdens of the new system. Furthermore, it seems likely that everyone will face the extra costs of complying with the new system, while the savings will be distributed more partially.
  In addition, page 112 of the Red Book contains the revelation that the extra tax yield arising from self-assessment is going to be £850 million. That figure appears to arise in two ways: first from the effect of assessment of taxable profits on a current rather than a previous year basis, and secondly, because personal allowances will be set against the current rather than the previous year's profits. We shall debate in Committee the extent to which that will be a one-off or an on-going effect.
  In any event, it means an extra £850 million tax take from schedule D taxpayers. It is a tax increase that the Government have tried to hide by smuggling it in the back door and hoping that no one will notice before the election.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I have a straightforward question for the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has difficulty in dealing with this type of question, but I shall try again. I published a letter in The Independent which dealt point by point with the hon. Gentleman's allegations about self-assessment. I made it absolutely clear that profit growth accounted for the figure in the Red Book, and that there will be no double tax hit on companies. Does he agree with the analysis in that letter in The Independent? Did he even read it?
  Mr. Smith: If the Financial Secretary expects me to read his letters, it would be good if he addressed them to me in future. I should then certainly read and study them. I did not see his letter in The Independent, but he cannot dispute what appears on page 112 of the Red Book. There is a list of all the measures arising from the Budget, along with a list of other revenue and cost effects. The lists reveal an extra £850 million tax yield. Before I issued the news release, I checked the figures with the Library, which in turn checked with the Inland Revenue. We shall examine in Committee whether that is a one-off or an on-going effect.
  The fact is that taxation self-assessment is going to impose an enormous extra burden on small businesses and the self-employed. If the Financial Secretary and his colleagues do not believe that, they should talk to small business men and the self-employed in their own
  428
  constituencies, who will tell them how great the extra burden will be. The Federation of Small Businesses, for example, said that it felt
  "strongly that at least a transitionary period of two years should be put into place during which time there should be no recourse to hefty penalties for late returns."
  Leading tax advisers are saying that the Government have not yet got the system right, and that there might well not be sufficient Inland Revenue staff available to give advice to sort things out.
  The Bill contains 22 clauses on self-assessment, many of them dealing with matters that one might have expected the Government to get right. This is the final opportunity for the Government to avert what could well be a great disaster for the self-employed and small businesses and could have disastrous employment consequences in general. I invite the Government to join me in addressing the subject seriously and objectively, to get the proposals right in order to help the self-employed and small businesses that will otherwise face an intolerable burden.
  Small businesses will get precious little help from other measures in the Budget. Although the cut in the small business tax rate is welcome, it must be set against the fact that the VAT registration threshold did not go up fully in line with inflation; that business rates will go up by 5 per cent. more than inflation; and that the knock-on effects of the landfill levy will kick in six months before the associated cuts in employers' national insurance.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may not yet have received the letter that I wrote to him in the spirit in which he put his arguments on self-assessment. I invited him to clarify any practical ideas he has. Will he give me an undertaking today to publish his ideas, if any, so that we might learn his policy, once and for all, on an issue that the Labour party has welcomed on principle in the two previous Finance Bills?
  Mr. Smith: I am not sure whether the Financial Secretary means a separate letter from the one he sent to The Independent. In any event, I will read his letter when I receive it, and I am more than happy to set out our proposals. The Financial Secretary will find plenty of proposals in the amendments that we will table to the Finance Bill. The proposals will be on record in Hansard for him to read and thereby profit from. Let us hope that small businesses and the self-employed will benefit from our debate because the Government take notice of what we have said.
  I shall now deal with the proposals in the Bill on housing investment. We welcome the principle of attracting private investment in housing, and we will explore how effective the proposals are likely to prove in practice. We will want to be assured that there are safeguards against abuse. We are concerned that the scheme is open-ended, because there appears to be no requirement that properties are held for any length of time. The implications for rent levels and the housing benefit subsidy are not clear.
  How far might the investment trusts provide a shelter for former business expansion scheme properties? Do the proposals provide a double tax subsidy? Time and time again, we have seen tax breaks for property schemes in which costly concessions have been given for low-risk investment in properties with little or no housing, economic or social value. We need to be sure that the

  429
  proposals will not prove to be a repeat performance. We want to see a genuine partnership between the private and public sectors in the provision of affordable, good-quality housing, but housing companies must be a means of increasing supply and extending choice, not a vehicle for restricting them by privatising council housing.
  There is nothing in the Bill to address effectively the problems of insecurity, negative equity and still high levels of mortgage repossessions. Conservative Members may be inclined to point to changes in personal taxation, but people have got back but a small fraction of the extra taxation that the Government have imposed since 1992. Typical families are still paying some £600 more a year in taxes than at the time of the general election, when the Prime Minister promised tax cuts year on year.
  We welcome the fact that fear of an electorate that has been hit with 21 tax increases since the general election has forced the Government to give a little back. However, even that little is being eaten away by extra demands for everything from the council tax to rail fares.
  The lower tax rate on savings and the exemption of insurance benefits arising from long-term care will provide modest help. However, those proposals do not begin to address the real challenge of reforming the welfare and pensions systems to ensure that everyone has the chance of a rewarding working life, and dignity and security in retirement.
  The mere fact that the Government have made it clear in the Bill that compensation for mis-sold personal pensions should be exempt from tax—a scandal for which the Conservative Government must accept their share of responsibility—is a reminder that people cannot place their trust for the future in a party that has got it so wrong in the past.
  The Finance Bill is profoundly disappointing, even if the sins of omission are greater than those of commission. It has all the hallmarks of a tired, frightened Government, who have no new ideas to revitalise a sluggish economy. They have no vision to bring together a divided society or to embark on the training and investment revolution that Britain needs.
  This is not a Finance Bill for jobs, investment or fairness. It does nothing to advance the opportunities for everyone to make the most of his potential with a true stake in society. It does nothing to build a strong economy or a fair society, still less to recognise how far one depends on the other. For all those reasons, as set out in our amendment, the Opposition will reject the Bill in the Lobby tonight, as surely as the British people want rid of the failed and divided Government who produced it.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. David Hunt: I find it difficult to follow the first two speeches because they appear to have been delivered by people living on different planets.
  The first speech delivercd by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was based in the real world—a world in which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have regaled for us economic statistics better than I can ever remember in my political lifetime. Indeed, the Opposition had no real answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester,
  430
  North (Mr. Jenkin), who pointed out not only that the statistics are put forward by the Government but corroborated by the OECD. I cannot recall a time when we had better conditions for sustaining a period of non-inflationary growth.
  We then had the speech from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I believed that his amendment promised much, but delivered very little in his speech. Many of us waited with some expectation for the details of the welfare to work initiative to be given in the debate. Perhaps they may be published during the proceedings on the Finance Bill—I very much hope so. We have heard reference again to a one-off tax, but, by definition, one cannot build an alternative economic strategy on a windfall tax. The Opposition, however, seem once again just to have taken refuge in a series of soundbites.
  The Leader of the Opposition has become a master of the double entendre. He is a leading politician who needs spin doctors to explain everything he says. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out clearly, the stakeholder economy can mean two different things at least. Therefore we need explanations, but today there came none. I greatly regret that.
  I just want to make two points. First, I congratulate the Chancellor on what I believe to be a one-nation Budget. I challenge what the hon. Member for Oxford, East said about the Conservatives allegedly having deserted one-nation Toryism. That could not be further from the truth.
  As I said, the first two speeches in the debate appeared to have been delivered by people living on different planets. That very phrase was used by Benjamin Disraeli in "Sybil", chapter five, book II, when he wrote:
  "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets…the rich and the poor."
  In chapter eight, book I, Disraeli wrote:
  "I was told that the Privileged and the People formed two nations."
  The desire to overcome that difference has been the theme running through my strong belief in Conservatism and Christian democracy. I see it very much in the Budget. I recall on a previous occasion when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that one of his clear objectives was to ensure that we did not have developing within the United Kingdom the sort of underclass that we have seen develop in the United States. The Budget and the Finance Bill do much to ensure that that will never happen here.
  Just after the war a group of eminent Conservatives published a pamphlet entitled "One Nation". In the subtitle it described itself as
  "a Tory approach to social problems."
  That group of Conservative members included the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Enoch Powell, Iain Macleod, Angus Maude and others. One-nation Toryism is not the possession of the left, the centre or the right. It is fundamental to Conservatism. I wanted to echo that message in the debate and put the record straight.
  Members of the Opposition have used the phrase "one nation" as though it was the latest thing in soundbites without realising that it is fundamental to many of our beliefs in politics.

  431
  Secondly, I also believe that this is a Budget for jobs. I come from an area where we have had a high level of unemployment for far too long, going back beyond when I first came into the House 20 years ago. That high rate of average unemployment has also contained pockets of extremely high levels of unemployment, which have done a great deal to undermine the social fabric of society. It is the Tory approach to those problems that provides the answer.
  In his Budget, the Chancellor clearly defined the social market. Of course we must allow the market to produce the wealth so that we can then afford the social policies that enable us to ensure fundamentally that we are one nation.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman squares his belief in one-nation Toryism with the findings of the Rowntree Trust's commission on wealth? That revealed that during the period in which he sat in Cabinet for many years the gulf between rich and poor throughout Britain, including Wales, was substantial.
  Mr. Hunt: Different interpretations have been put on that Rowntree report, but it demonstrated clearly, as John Rawls has always said about the social market justifying the market, that the poor are now better off than they have been before. It may be that in certain circumstances the gap between rich and poor has increased, but the justification for the market is that it ensures that people are better off, and in particular that the greatest help is concentrated on those in the greatest need.
  I just wanted to make clear that for me the spirit of one-nation Toryism is as strong in the Tory party today as it has ever been. The centre ground is our territory—it is the territory where we have won successive general elections under Lady Thatcher and the Prime Minister. We must never surrender our election-winning strategy. Siren voices from the extreme left, and indeed from the right, may urge us to sidetrack, to move away from one nation policies, but we must remain true to our long-standing beliefs.
  That is why I wanted to stress that, certainly in my parliamentary career, I want to devote myself to ensuring that in my area we do not allow high levels of unemployment to undermine our social fabric. We must ensure that in the Wirral, Liverpool and Merseyside we get more jobs, and better ones. We will do that only if we espouse the economic policies that have brought us the success that we are now seeing. It must be part of our objective to ensure that that success is spread to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the only way in which we can sustain those policies that were the fundamental bedrock of that group of Conservatives in 1950 who produced "One Nation". We must continue to ensure that we capture the electorate's imagination with the new ideas that lie within the one-nation policies of the future. That is why I strongly support the Prime Minister in his belief that we must lay the foundation for sustained, non-inflationary growth in the 21st century too.
  We will do that by espousing once again, in clear detail, the five fundamental policies that the Prime Minister has clearly laid out: first, sound economic growth, the foundations of which.. are made more secure by this Finance Bill; secondly, opportunity and choice in health and education; thirdly, strong law and order policies, enabling everyone to walk our streets without fear;
  432
  fourthly, first-class public services, building on successful privatisation policies that have brought better quality services, and on the citizens charter, which has given people the rights and the responsibilities that they welcome; finally, pride in our nation.
  Pride in our nation means a lot of things—perhaps different things to different people. For me, it means having a nation that is one nation. Of course, the place for our one nation is very much right at the heart of Europe. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will be more positive about Europe, although recognising, at the same time, that we must continue to fight for British interests. That was very much our Prime Minister's theme in securing, rightly, the opt-out from the social protocol and the postponement of—the opt-out from—a decision on a single currency until we know much more about what that entails, but it also means fighting all along the line to ensure that we have a Europe that is powerful, peaceful and prosperous, built again on the fundamental principles of one-nation Conservatism.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: We have listened to an exceptional speech. I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) that the one-nation idea is not the prerogative of one side of the House or the other. It should belong to us all. Some people feel that what has happened in the past—I do not know for how many years—has been an abberation that must be put right. I was one of the three Labour Members who had the privilege of having their name inscribed on a silver platter given to Ian Macleod's widow. Although we had our great differences, we were accorded that sort of respect because we were all trying to do the best for this country's people, and that must be the task.
  When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) talk about the need for this one nation, they are pointing out the differences that have emerged and that need to be put right by the Conservative party, but it is its problem and we will be considering that problem with great interest.
  My first comment on the Finance Bill involves the limited number of economic debates that we now have. We have debates on the Queen's Speech, the Budget and the Finance Bill and then a desert through to July. It cannot be right that the central issues involving the running of our country should be the subject of so few economic debates. Under normal circumstances, the next debate will not take place for another six months, which is clearly inadequate.
  We now have a regular two-volume issue of the Bill. I remember my horror when I saw the first two-volume issue come out, but the Government are pledged to reduce the burdens on industry and to simplify the taxation system's operation. I know the aims of that, but, despite their assurance, I am not convinced. As the simplification is likely to lead to more complicated transitional arrangements, I suspect that it will not be too long before we have a three-volume edition of the Finance Bill.
  The simplification was mentioned in Accountancy Age by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). He was right when he pointed out the need for such simplification, but it will not be an easy task to achieve, as he probably recognises. In my many years in the House, I

  433
  have heard similar promises about taxation simplification, but I have seen Finance Bills go from strength to strength, increasing in size as they go along.
  Baroness Thatcher's speech gives the opportunity to assess her impact on the economy. I do not want to dwell on the poll tax. Many hon. Members on the Government Benches share in the humiliation of its introduction. It will serve as a text book on how to overcome the dangers of an over-mighty Prime Minister and a cowed House of Commons. What is more lasting than the billions of pounds lost in that venture is the serious decline in local government.
  As a consequence of so much local government finance coming from central Government, decisions are not being made in the places where they should be made. I believe in local government and in the initiatives that many people can introduce in their community's interests. I was politically involved in some small way when Manchester city council decided to retain the airport in Manchester. It was a big decision. Large commitments of money were involved over a long period, but the example of the creation of the Manchester ship canal was put forward, and it was felt that the successors of the city councillors who were involved in that should at least to be able to do the same thing.
  Against great Government hostility, those successors went ahead and built Manchester airport, which is of enormous value to the region's citizens and to the communications of the whole of the north-west. They could do that then, but not now, which is wrong. There were people with local knowledge, people of standing and of ability, who would have come to the House but decided not to as they felt that their centre of operations was in their local community, which is what made that community great, impressive and powerful. The trouble is that such people are not likely to undertake that sort of work because of the limited opportunities that they have.
  On the size of the Finance Bill, the interesting thing is the number of new taxes that we now have from this Government. We have had the air travel tax, amended in this Finance Bill—one of the consequences of simplification is the amendments that will be made in due course: any changes will be the subject of alterations over the years to come—the insurance tax, and now we have the landfill tax, with its 29 clauses and pages and pages of schedules. The boast of Lord Lawson, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the number of taxes that he had abolished will not, therefore, be emulated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is clear now—unless he listens to the Prime Minister, who wishes to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but that would be a disaster.
  The justification for capital taxes such as capital gains tax and inheritance tax was that capital was a sure source of income. It was differentiated from earned income because that was less sure: people could lose their jobs. The value of capital and the income from that capital would remain, and that was the justification, over many years, for the difference between earned and unearned income. Unearned income deriving from capital was more secure and certain; earned income could just be lost rapidly.
  In the post-war years, that aspect changed. With full employment, unearned income was scarcely enough to maintain the value of the capital because of inflation levels, which eroded capital, and the value of capital as a
  434
  source of income declined. However, we had full employment so the value of earned income rose by comparison. But the position has changed again. We now have high unemployment levels, great fears of redundancy and low inflation so the position has reverted to what it historically was: capital produces much greater certainty in relation to income. Unearned income should be treated in the same way as it historically had been until the Government came into office. That is one of the aspects that we need to take into account.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he favours, therefore, the reintroduction of the investment income surcharge?
  Mr. Sheldon: The investment income surcharge was the right sort of reaction. How we deal with the consequences of the changes in the value of capital under the next Government remains to be seen. An important aspect of the matter is that the value of capital has changed; it went one way and now it has gone another.
  In terms of inheritance tax, I can see the case for moderate levels of taxation of capital. Those who have created wealth want to pass it on to their successors and I understand that. To a certain extent, I can see the case for those who want to accumulate wealth and to pass it on to their families. I understand people who work hard to accumulate wealth for themselves and I understand people who work hard to accumulate wealth so that they can pass it on to their successors. What I do not see is why we should relieve from taxation those who are the beneficiaries of that wealth, to which they have contributed nothing. A person who makes wealth needs to be treated with some respect because of the wealth created, but the person who receives that wealth as a beneficiary—as an inheritor—should not be regarded in quite the same way. There is a need for such people to pay some taxes. We can argue about whether they should pay more than they have in the past, but we should certainly not remove the existing level of taxation. That is clearly wrong.
  Another issue is the cost nowadays of earning a living. We never used to take such costs into account. Apart from a small allowance for tools, which was a trivial amount, the costs of earning a living were always excluded from income tax assessments. Nowadays, the costs of earning a living are great. Transport costs are one example. In my constituency, there are people who travel 30 or 40 miles to Leeds or Bradford; people never did that before. Transport costs are not allowed against tax at all although people cannot get the kind of work that they used to be able to get.
  Fifty, 60 or 70 years ago—not all that long ago—people walked down the road to the mill. People wore ordinary working clothes and took a jam butty or whatever for lunch. People do not do any of that now; things have changed. There is great expense in earning a living today and that needs to be taken into account. Earned income is not the same as unearned income. Unearned income does not cost people anything, but earned income does and we shall have to find some way in which to deal with that.
  The central feature of Lady Thatcher's period in office was not the changes she made. What was exceptional about the period was the rise in the exploitation of North sea oil. Anything else was a disclaimer. In the past, Governments took unwise courses, but the balance of

  435
  payments constraint always limited the extent to which they could proceed with a particular folly. In 1956, we had the folly of Suez, which was brought to an end by balance of payments constraints. We had Maudling's dash for growth in 1963–64, which was brought to an end by a balance of payments crisis. It might have succeeded otherwise and have been one of the great moves of the post-war years. It could not, however, succeed because of the balance of payments problem. We saw the rise in OPEC—Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries—prices which would have been a much smaller problem if we had not had the difficulty of a balance of payments crisis. All those efforts—some of them useful, some of them not—were brought to heel by the constraint of the balance of payments.
  In the 1980s, for the very first time since the 1914–18 war—perhaps since the beginning of the century—we had a balance of payments that was no constraint. The question was what we would do with that enormous advantage. With one bound, we were free. What did we do with that freedom? We destroyed much of our manufacturing industry. There were $2.40 to the pound and there was a 17 per cent. interest rate.
  Like many hon. Members, my firmly held views are reinforced by my constituency experiences; they are burnt deeply into me. From 1979 to 1981, my constituency lost one third of its industry. Good firms which had every justification to succeed were lost. If they had been in Germany or Japan, they would have continued. Few of them were low-tech; most were medium-tech and one or two were high-tech. They could not survive in that period. Engineering was a prominent industry in my area, but good firms went.
  I am pleased that our amendment refers first to the need for manufacturing industry and that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to that first in his valuable speech, which I much enjoyed. I might have been prepared to tolerate a massive Finance Bill if it had included much in the way of comfort for manufacturing industry, but I see nothing of real merit. I have argued for manufacturing industry since I came into the House and the situation is now becoming even more urgent.
  The pound is now down from DM2.95 to DM2.22. We ran a £1.7 billion trade deficit in October, the latest month for which we have figures. Even the Red Book forecasts a £5 billion deficit in our balance of payments. There are no signs in our overseas account of the consequences of a devaluation of more than 20 per cent., with no erosion by wage inflation, and of unemployment at well over 2 million.
  After the years of reckless destruction of our manufacturing industry, we are now seeing the consequences plainly. In such circumstances, one might have expected a contrite Government to do their utmost to repair the disasters of the past. The opportunities are there in this enormous Finance Bill, but they have not been taken.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman said that the destruction of the manufacturing industry in this country was at least partly caused by an exchange rate that was too high. In the past few minutes, he seems to have said exactly the reverse. He complains
  436
  about the destruction of manufacturing industry, yet he criticises the fact that the pound has gone down against the deutschmark—from DM2.90 to DM2.20.
  Mr. Sheldon: My point is that under normal circumstances, such a devaluation would have produced an enormous export revival. That is what used to happen and we should have seen it happen again. We did not because manufacturing industry was so damaged by the events of the past that it was not able to make use of that advantage. The devaluation and the limit on the size of wage settlements were enormous advantages, but we could not make use of them because of what had happened to manufacturing industry in the years before. We have a high level of skills in my constituency; people earned well above the average for the north-west as a whole and above the average of the country as a whole. Yet those people could not find jobs.
  We have a Finance Bill in two thick volumes, yet it contains nothing to deal with the central economic problem of our time, which is how we help manufacturing industry to deal with our failure to pay our way in international markets. The first step should have been to increase substantially the level of capital allowances for plant and machinery. The second should have been to continue to defy the Bank of England on interest rates. Here I pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Few Chancellors would have been prepared to defy the Bank in the face of market pressure and I look forward to seeing him continue that defiance in the coming months.
  Thirdly, the Chancellor could have provided funds for our manufacturers. I know that the best sources for investment are within the companies themselves; no one needs to tell me that. However, if one considers the danger of our overseas position, the case for supplementing such investment sources is overwhelming. The Government cannot operate a hands-off approach at a time of such urgency. Those investment sources should be supplemented—work on that should have been started long ago—whether by encouraging retentions for investment or by more favourable grants. Those are tasks that the Government should have undertaken.
  The economic future of our country lies in the hands of our manufacturers. It is a terrible indictment of this Government that such an obvious case needs to be made at all.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I tried to follow the points made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). His speech seemed a little like a history lesson in which we rehearsed answers that would have been correct for last year's examination paper on economics—especially his reference to the destruction of manufacturing being caused by the high exchange rate of the very early 1980s. He seemed to overlook the unbelievable damage done to manufacturing industry by the antediluvian industrial relations practices encouraged, approved, welcomed and supported by the Labour Government of the 1970s.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne seemed to ignore entirely the effects of the penal rates of taxation—which drove many of the best managers and researchers to offer their skills in competing economies—and the rates of interest and inflation, which discouraged

  437
  risk taking and investment in this country. Those were the causes of the decline of manufacturing at the beginning of the 1980s.
  It is to the Government's credit that the situation has been totally transformed, to the point where we export more per head than Japan, where we are shortly to become a net exporter of motor cars, and we export more televisions and other goods than any other European country. That is as a result of the transformation in industrial relations and the fact that we have a grip on inflation, fair rates of taxation, and so on.
  I agreed with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on one point: his approval of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who gave an excellent, clear and timely reminder of the true nature of one-nation Conservatism. He spoke eloquently, warmly and in a well-informed way about the origins of one-nation Conservatism, which quite wrongly is now characterised as some excessively pro-European, left-wing body of philosophy. It has nothing whatever to do with that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, which I very much welcomed.
  Last week, Baroness Thatcher delivered an important speech in the City of London. The central theme of the speech was a vigorous attack on the principles and policies close to the heart of the Labour party. It encompassed a specific attack on new Labour. It issued a clear warning about the dangers to the country of those people who flirt with the idea that a brief period of opposition for the Conservative party would be either good for Britain or good for the party. She made it clear that that was not true. I welcomed all that. Indeed, we have heard today evidence of how right she was.
  Surprisingly, the most reported part of Baroness Thatcher's speech was the allegation that the Conservative party had undergone a lurch to the right. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as the Finance Bill demonstrates. The Bill is based on a one-nation Budget. Baroness Thatcher was right not only in that respect but in her attack on the Labour party. The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was the single most incompetent and ignorant speech that I have heard a Treasury spokesman make in the 12 years that I have been in the House.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East absolutely refused to answer any of the fundamental questions that would face any incoming Labour Government. He could not or would not say whether the present level of public spending was too high, too low or right. He could not or would not say whether the present inflation target was too high, too low or about right. He could not or would not say whether the present level of interest rates was too high, too low or about right. As he could not answer those most basic questions, it was only to his good fortune that neither the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) nor the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was present to hear him make such an unbelievable mess of his opportunity.
  The Budget has introduced measures through the Finance Bill which put the interests of the lower-paid at the top of the agenda. The extension of the low-rate, 20 per cent. tax band. a cut in the basic rate and a rise in
  438
  personal allowances are all designed to give maximum help to people on lower incomes. Indeed, the Budget was so responsible, so centrist in its approach, so one nation in its foundations that most pundits were astonished by its moderation.
  Many commentators who had been looking forward to a great display of fireworks and huge tax cuts were positively frustrated at the responsibility displayed by the Chancellor in his Budget measures. There was a degree of sourness in some of the immediate reactions because such people had not got what they had expected to be able to attack: large-scale tax cuts.
  Some of those howls of protest were somewhat silenced a week or two later by the cut in interest rates. Few people—even if they do not know at what level they want interest rates—are able to criticise lower interest rates. The fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West pointed out, mortgage rates are at the lowest level for 30 years is an achievement that everyone in the country can celebrate.
  The only people who do not benefit from low interest rates are savers. There are, of course, many small savers, especially pensioners, for whom the interest derived from their modest savings is an important supplement to their pension. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome clause 65, which introduces the lower rate of taxation on investment income for basic rate taxpayers.
  I was very interested to hear the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne say that he favoured the reintroduction of the investment income surcharge. I looked carefully for any response from the Opposition Front-Bench team to that. I did not detect any, but perhaps later in the debate Labour Front Benchers will make it clear whether they agree with that proposed reintroduction.
  I take precisely the opposite view. I believe that people who have accumulated modest savings, which have usually been paid for out of income that has already been taxed, deserve a lower rate of tax on their investment income. Clause 65 at least begins to remove the element of double taxation on investment income. I hope in due course that it will be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to extend that measure by setting an even lower rate for basic rate taxpayers who enjoy a certain amount of investment income.
  I have been asked by pensioners in my constituency whether that concession is likely to be maintained. Their point makes any Opposition Front-Bench comment on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about the investment income surcharge particularly interesting.
  The landfill tax is one of the important new proposals in the Bill.
  Mr. Sheldon: I should intervene before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point. I did not favour the investment income surcharge. I merely drew the distinction between earned and unearned income, which needs to be maintained. The main point of my argument is that there is a cost of earning a living. There is very little cost involved in getting a living from one's investments. The point that I was making was that those two sorts of income need to be treated separately—whether that is by means of allowances or by some other way has yet to he decided.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. That was not what I understood him to

  439
  say in answer to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). When we study Hansard, we shall perhaps be able to determine whether his clarification is in fact a slight withdrawal from what appeared to be his earlier position.
  I welcome the landfill tax as the introduction of a market instrument which will influence the behaviour of industry in an environmentally positive way. I recall from my time at the Department of the Environment how difficult it was to find ways of putting into practice the excellent theory that the tax system can be used to influence behaviour in such a way. Indeed, apart from the lower rate of duty on unleaded petrol, it is difficult to think of a good example of any differential tax or any other kind of market instrument that has been environmentally effective.
  The introduction of the landfill tax is to be welcomed for another reason: the proceeds are to be recycled directly for the benefit of industry in the form of the cut in employers' national insurance contributions. That is a way of using a tax, which will produce greener results, as a job-creating measure as well. It will be very widely supported.
  I hope that the Labour party will assure us at some stage that, in the improbable event of its coming to power, it would not use the landfill tax simply as a means of raising revenue and that the proceeds would continue to be recycled directly and in their entirety for the purpose of job creation.
  Although I support the Government's aim of eliminating inheritance tax and capital gains tax, I hope that greater priority can be given to reducing the rate of taxation on long-term capital gains. Indeed, if the rate of capital gains tax on investments that have been held for a minimum of, say, five years were cut from 40 to 20 per cent—or, preferably, even lower—the consequence would be increased revenue. A great many investors are locked into large, long-term capital gains that they are unwilling to realise at a tax rate of 40 per cent. A lower rate would not only encourage them to realise those gains but be economically beneficial, because the distortions in the economy and in investment decisions would be removed.
  If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wanted to be really Machiavellian, he could introduce a rate cut that was effective for one year only—for example, for the financial year 1996–97 the rate could be reduced from 40 to 10 per cent. I expect that investors will rush to take advantage of any such cut.
  Finally, I want to examine the question of stakeholding, about which we have heard so much recently. It was helpful yesterday to have some clarification from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield showing that the term "stakeholder economy" is not a policy or a philosophy but simply a slogan.
  Mr. Tim Smith: A soundbite.
  Mr. Yeo: "Slogan" is new Labour-speak for "soundbite".
  After all the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield over the past 18 months, I do not know how anyone could think that he was capable of producing something as coherent as a policy or a philosophy. Now that we know that it is just a slogan, perhaps we should explore how it relates to the Finance Bill. This debate is
  440
  an opportunity to shed some light on that. I do not seek clarification solely for the benefit of Conservative Members; Labour Members are keener than we are to know what is behind the slogan. I think in particular of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who understandably may be alarmed by the way in which policy announcements—slogans—pour down from on high when the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is on his way back from a winter holiday.
  It is clear that, for the Conservative party, a stakeholder economy stands, above all, for three things: for giving tenants the chance to become home owners; for giving employees, in particular the employees of former nationalised industries, the opportunity to become shareholders; and for giving trade union members the right to be balloted before they are forced to strike and to re-elect their leaders regularly. We know that, for the Labour party, a stakeholder economy means none of those things, because the current party leadership voted against those proposals when they first came before the House.
  The Bill deals with a wide range of economic and fiscal matters. I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East will tell us which of the 191 clauses and 37 schedules will help to create a stakeholder economy. If that is too difficult a question for him, perhaps he could tell us which of those 191 clauses and 37 schedules is at least compatible with Labour's new slogan. If he cannot answer those questions, we can conclude only that the stakeholder economy is not about individuals paying less tax, not about small businesses paying less tax, not about using the tax system for environmental purposes and not about allowing pensioners to keep a little more of the income from their savings—their stake in the economy.
  If the stakeholder economy is not about any of those, we are forced to conclude that it is just another soundbite—a way of filling time between now and the next election when the waffle, which is new Labour's substitute for real policy, will be put to the test. It is a way of avoiding answering the questions that the hon. Member for Oxford, East so assiduously avoided answering in his lengthy opening speech.
  If the stakeholder economy is none of the things that have mentioned, if it is not just empty waffle and a meaningless slogan, presumably the stakeholder economy is, for new Labour, what we all suspect and fear: a bigger stake for trade union leaders at the expense of employers and rank-and-file employees; a bigger stake for the European Commission at the expense of British interests; and a bigger stake for Labour local councils at the expense, usually, of council tax payers. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East will be honest enough to say so. If he says nothing, we can conclude only that it is truly the case.
  I warmly support the Bill. I do not intend to say any more about the detail of policy in case the eye of the Committee of Selection falls on me when it is choosing hon. Members to serve on the Standing Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It was interesting to watch the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) follow the lead of the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) in his robust defence of one-nation conservatism. The contents of the Bill seem to have

  441
  provoked a sudden debate about that, which I assume has nothing to do with anything that has happened outside the House.
  There is a fundamental difference between the aspirations of Conservative Members, but there appears to be an agreement that the Bill meets all aspirations, from whatever wing of the party. One possible reason for that is that the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre was very limited, and he was forced to compromise, thereby pleasing none or pleasing all.
  I want to focus on the report of the Treasury Select Committee—of which I am a member—which was published today. It makes a number of pertinent comments on the Bill and on the detail that we will have an opportunity to consider both today and in Committee. The three aspects of the Budget to which I want to draw attention are, first, the current level of public borrowing; secondly, the details of the education settlement and public expenditure control of it; and, thirdly, the private finance initiative and the investment spending attached to that.
  The Select Committee has expressed concern about the level of public borrowing. Indeed, in advance of the Budget, I pointed out that the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre was very narrow because of his failure to bring public borrowing under control. At that time, I did not realise how badly out of control it was. The reality is that we have ended up with a rather half-baked Budget—modest in tax cuts, with notional spending cuts and rises in petrol and council taxes.
  A number of Conservative Members challenged the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), on the appropriate level of spending and taxation. However, the Chancellor is still predicting that the tax burden will continue to rise every year right through to 2000–01. I suspect that, by that time, the Conservative party will not be in charge of the management of the economy.
  The Chancellor is to be commended for resisting the siren calls from one wing of his party to go for broke. He recognised that, whatever the aspirations of his party, he had a responsibility to the national finances which required him to put them before recovering lost ground or buying back lost supporters.
  That description may not be to the taste of Conservative Members, so I draw their attention to the Chancellor's comments on "The Frost Programme" in September 1994, before the borrowing figures for that year were published. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked whether taxes could be cut if borrowing fell to £30 billion. He said:
  "Well, big deal down to £30 billion. £30 billion is not the basis for cutting taxes, and would actually worry all those people out there if they thought I was going to start tax cutting on the back of even a £30 billion public sector requirement."
  That could not have been clearer.
  One year on, however, the Chancellor is forecasting a borrowing requirement of £29 billion, and all the comments made in the past few days suggest that it is proving hard to achieve even that figure. There is a real possibility that the Chancellor will cut taxes when the borrowing requirement is higher than £30 billion, contrary to his indication that it would he irresponsible to do so. I accept the advice of the Chancellor—the tax cut is not
  442
  justified, and should not have been proposed. The cut has not been supported by Liberal Democrats, or by at least some Labour Members.
  Mr. Barry Legg: The hon. Gentleman may be in danger of misleading the House to some extent about the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's position on the matter. The Committee's report—from which the hon. Gentleman did not dissent—stated that the Committee was "broadly in favour" of the overall stance of the Budget.
  Mr. Bruce: I recognise that the Chancellor accepted his responsibility, and sought not deep tax cuts but to ensure that the Budget's overall impact was close to neutral. Nevertheless, he stated that a borrowing requirement of £30 billion would not justify tax cuts. The present position is different from that of a couple of weeks ago, when the Committee produced its report, and it appears that a borrowing deficit of £30 billion may be the outcome this year. That wholly justifies my opinion that the Chancellor may not have been cautious enough.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) will have to contain himself as I deal with the education settlement, and I shall make clear exactly what the report says. Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have rightly pointed out that the Government's claim to be providing extra funding for education is simply a deception—it simply is not true. The Committee's report makes it clear that we did not accept the Government's view, and that Opposition Members who made that point were correct. Ministers cannot go on claiming credit for any generosity in education funding, as it does not exist.
  The Select Committee report states:
  "The increase in spending does not…have quite the substance the Chancellor claimed for it…There seems little doubt that some local authorities will be unable to pass on any increase in spending, and that some schools may neither perceive nor receive any increase in resources."
  That could not be clearer. Education is not receiving the financial support it needs, which in itself justifies the Committee's contention that, if there was any room for manoeuvre in the Budget, the money should have been made available for education and not for tax cuts.
  The Select Committee also expressed concern about the working of the Government's private finance initiative, and we are about to produce a report on that subject. This year's Red Book makes it clear that, far from unlocking new private finance to allow higher public investment, the private finance initiative is being used simply as a substitute for previously committed Government spending. That is not an attack on the principle of the private finance initiative, and the Select Committee may be able to inform the House on the matter in a few weeks' or months' time, after we have taken evidence. We can then show whether our scepticism about the real benefits of the initiative is justified.
  It is clear from the Government's presentation that the private finance initiative is not unlocking any additional public investment, but is simply being used to help the Government to bring their borrowing under control. In spite of that, the Government have not been successful.
  I should like to refer to a number of specific measures that certainly will be raised in Committee. I have made it clear that the 1 p reduction in income tax is not justified, and that I shall vote against it. I also wish to pick up on

  443
  the Chief Secretary's ebullient claim about the impact of the reduction in spirits duty of 27p per bottle—the biggest reduction in sprits duty since the war, he said. That is true, but the Chief Secretary failed to tell the House that the Government increased the duty last year by 26p a bottle.
  Following the Government's defeat in the VAT vote in the House, the Chancellor—in a fit of pique—forgot his fine words about supporting the industry, and sought to claw back revenue. In doing so, however, the Government lost revenue. They depressed the domestic demand for spirits, to such an extent that less revenue was received following the increase in duty than was received in the previous year when the duty was lower. I hope that the industry will recover and that revenue will return to last year's level, not because I want the Chancellor to secure revenue but because I want to see an increase in the sales of home-consumed whisky, to the benefit of the industry.
  I should like to see a consistent strategy from the Government which recognises that the tax regime disadvantages the home-produced spirits industry. Taxation should be based on alcohol content, not on some specious view that spirits are somehow more harmful than wine. I have often said in the House that I find it extraordinary that we choose to tax home-produced spirits—consistently our largest export commodity— to the advantage of imported wines. That is a crazy approach, which I cannot believe any other country would pursue.
  An item of which I was unaware has been raised with me by constituents, and seems to be the result of a strange anomaly. The 17.5 per cent. VAT rate, rather than 8 per cent., is applied to orders of 2,300 litres of central heating fuel, on the grounds that such an order is deemed to be for commercial use. That seems unfair, and I am aware of people who have such a large requirement and are being charged 17.5 per cent. The Government should consider raising the threshold, or take account of council tax banding as proof that a consumer's requirement is domestic. The anomaly seems to be affecting and angering a number of people.
  The Government should reconsider their very unfair cut in energy efficiency grants, which has caused a great deal of anger and frustration among those involved in the provision of home insulation. The two major bodies concerned are Neighbourhood Energy Action and Energy Action (Scotland). The Government must acknowledge that they are seen as having deceived the public and the agencies, and to have gone back on clear promises to this House.
  After the Government defeat on the motion to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent., and on a number of occasions since, Ministers gave assurances that the budget for home insulation would continue to be £100 million a year. They have now cut the budget to £69 million a year, despite the fact that, on 23 January last year, the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), said that the £100 million a year budget would continue during the next three years.
  On 22 May last year, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), said that, during 1995–96, some £100 million would be made available for grants, and that a similar sum would be set aside for the next two years. That promise was clear and unequivocal, and agencies have operated on that basis. As a result of the
  444
  complete betrayal of that assurance and the reversal of that policy, many people—particularly elderly people—who need home insulation will not be able to get it.
  It is no good the Government saying that they will make a 25 per cent. grant for people who fall outside the qualification threshold. All the evidence suggests that, unless the grant is about 70 to 75 per cent., the take-up level among those who are just outside the threshold will be very low. The Government know that to be the case, and they have calculated on that basis. I urge the Government yet again to reconsider what they have done, because their policy is neither justified nor fair.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) talked about the landfill tax, and the benefit of using that revenue to reduce charges on employers. He surely accepts that that was not the policy which applied when VAT was imposed on fuel, but it was one small, offsetting gesture that the Government took on board: they would use some of the revenue to provide home insulation grants for those most in need of them. In those circumstances, it is regrettable that the Government have gone back on that policy.
  Mr. Yeo: Is it not the case that, even following the reduction in the projected figures for spending on the home energy efficiency scheme, the spending in the next financial year will still be substantially higher than it was before VAT was introduced on domestic fuel charges?
  Mr. Bruce: Of course that is true. The point is that a promise was made, on which agencies based their plans. The agencies now expect that the reversal in policy will reduce the number of people who will receive the benefit of home energy insulation by 200,000, which is one third. That is the point at issue, as well as the fact that it was a link which the Government accepted and have now broken.
  A number of developments have hit charities particularly hard, and unfortunately, to date, the Government have not responded to them. The national lottery has clearly hit charities extremely hard, but so has the switch from income tax to VAT. Charities estimate that they will have an extra £350 million of costs as a result of that policy. As a consequence, the reduction in the standard rate of income tax means that more revenue will be lost to charities, because, of course, people who benefit from covenants will get back one penny in the pound less in tax relief than would have been the case. It is estimated that that change in policy will cost charities some £17 million a year.
  I hope that the Government will consider, for example, allowing covenants which were signed before the Budget to continue to qualify for a 25 per cent. relief, on the basis that donors could not have taken into account when making their donations the fact that the relief would be less than anticipated. I see the Financial Secretary nodding. I hope that his nod is a sign that the Government will either accept or propose such an amendment.
  Mr. Jack: Listen hard.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, and I will be here to listen on that basis.
  There are other issues that I think would probably be better raised in Committee; and I and my colleague on the Committee intend to raise them.

  445
  The Bill is extremely long, which is a depressing comment on the complexity of our tax system and our apparent inability to simplify it. My view, and the view of my colleagues, continues to be that, within his broad responsibility, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has acted responsibly, which is possibly why he won no praise from Lady Thatcher—or possibly because he is a one-nation Tory; I am not sure which it was. Nevertheless, I believe, for the reasons I have stated, that the overall thrust of the Budget, and the Finance Bill which flows from it, is flawed and not one which I or my colleagues have supported or will support.
  As a point of clarification, I do not regard the Opposition amendment as satisfactory either, because, as one Conservative Member has said, a windfall tax is no basis for financing an alternative strategy. I and my colleagues are fundamentally opposed to that, and we cannot support such a strategy or the Labour motion. We will, if necessary, force a Division on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I remind the House of my interests, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests—not that my remarks will be in any way remotely connected to any of them.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). He is a colleague on the Treasury Select Committee, and will not be surprised to know that I frequently disagree with him. Nevertheless, I shall say two things for the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats this afternoon. First of all, they do at least have the honesty and the courage, when proposing a specific increase in public expenditure, to propose at the same time the increase in taxation that will pay for it. Secondly, they do at least occasionally appear to have some policies.
  The hon. Member for Gordon set out a list of thoughts this afternoon, and he has obviously given some consideration to all of them. Some of the proposals, no doubt, have greater merit than others, and I hope that he will forgive me for not engaging with them all now. At least there were some policy ideas there. What an extraordinary and breathtaking contrast his speech was to that of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who spoke on behalf of the Labour party this afternoon. That was an amazingly vacuous, shambolic speech.
  I agree with the comments of some of my hon. Friends that the vacuity of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East was unprecedented, even coming from the Labour party. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recall that he was specifically asked by Conservative Members for his views on interest rates—whether they were currently too high or too low or whether they were right. He was asked what his views were on an inflation target; whether there should be one and, if so, what it should be. He was asked for his views on a range of fundamental elements in any economic policy in any country, and it was quite obvious from the hon. Gentleman's refusal—
  Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish.
  446
  It was obvious from the determination of the hon. Member for Oxford, East to evade all those questions that the Labour party does not have the rudiments of an answer to any of them. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman and the party that he was speaking for this afternoon have not even begun to put together the very rudiments of any economic policy for the country. Yet the Labour party has the extraordinary pretention to claim to the British electorate that it is a credible alternative Government.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Oxford, East was an amazing performance. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will not think that I am making a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman. He is not an unintelligent man. I know him well. He is no less intelligent than other hon. Members who sit on the Labour Back Benches and Front Benches. The fact of the matter is that he was in an impossible position.
  Even if the Gentleman had wanted to or been capable of it, how could he have devised an economic policy when his boss was incapable of devising or expounding one? The abdication and the vacuity in the Labour party come from on high—from the very top of the Labour party. That will obviously paralyse every statement by junior members of the Front-Bench team.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman discussed inflation with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Has he read the briefing in the Library, which shows that Britain has the second highest rate of inflation of the G7 countries, and that it is slightly more than 1 per cent. greater than the top end of the target in the Treasury forecast? Does he believe that inflation is too high, too low or about right in comparison with the Government's target?
  Mr. Davies: Inflation, which has reduced enormously since we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990—which fact is, of course, satisfactory, encouraging and gratifying—remains too high; we wish it to be even lower. However, I believe that the balance of professional opinion in the academic world, the City and elsewhere is that the Government have more than a sporting chance of achieving their target of reducing recorded inflation, as shown in the retail prices index, to less than 2.5 per cent. during the present Parliament.
  I have to say to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) that, when that is achieved—and it will be achieved—it will be regarded as one of the great historic achievements of the present Parliament, because the Government will have reduced inflation, and with it inflationary expectations, to a level that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I have known in our adult lifetime. That is a major achievement. It represents the moment when the country has finally climbed out of the hole that was dug for us by the Labour party's policies in the 1960s and 1970s.
  Let me turn, as I am sure you are anxious I should, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the specifics of the Budget. The Budget is first rate. I do not say that as a cliche; I say it in a thoroughly considered sense.
  The Budget is built on, and enshrines, the two great principles of the Conservative party, which I am proud to represent. First, it represents the belief in sound money, in responsible, competent management, because every penny of the tax reductions that have been offered to the British public in the Budget have been met pound for pound and penny for penny by public expenditure reductions, and one cannot get much sounder than that.

  447
  The second great principle on which the Conservative party is based, and about which I am proud to speak on its behalf this afternoon, is the principle of one nation. It is the principle that, when dividends are to be paid—dividends from economic growth or from sound financial and fiscal management—they should not be directed at one section of our people, but the whole nation should benefit. That is the principle that is enshrined in the Finance Bill.
  There is something in the Budget for the great mass of the working population who pay tax at the standard rate—a reduction of 1p. No doubt there will be more reductions as long as the Conservative Government remain in office, which I hope will be a very long time.
  There is something significant in the Budget for those people who are just entering the labour market, or who are still on relatively low salaries or wages, in the considerable increase in the 20 per cent. band. There is something for families in the increase of the married man's allowance. There is something for those people who, perhaps as a result of thrift and hard work, have something to hand on to their children—the inheritance tax threshold has been increased to £200,000.
  There is something in the Budget for unemployed people, those who hope to get back into work, and in the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. I could continue.
  In the most genuine sense, and most strikingly, the Budget is to the highest degree a one-nation Budget, and I am proud to support it as such.
  I did not intend, when I entered the Chamber, to mention the name of the previous Prime Minister, but her name has been mentioned several times, and it might be artificial to pretend that that has not happened.
  One of the extraordinary things about Baroness Thatcher's criticisms of the Government a few days ago was her suggestion that the Government had not cut public expenditure sufficiently. The position is very sad. I fear that Baroness Thatcher, who takes second place to no one in my admiration for her historic achievements, that great personage of our history, in her decline has forgotten one of the great rules that she held dear in her prime—that one should do one's homework before making a pronouncement.
  Had Baroness Thatcher done her homework, she would have discovered that the Chancellor has cut no less than £44 billion from the public expenditure expectations that he inherited, including a reduction of £11 billion in the Budget this year.
  Had she done her homework, she would have known that, in the 1995–96 financial year, public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product is about 42.5 per cent. I am afraid that the Government of Baroness Thatcher, which I was proud to support, never succeeded in reducing that ratio to 42.5 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. She achieved it only in the irresponsible, uncontrolled and regrettable boom that existed at the end of the 1980s, the price of which all hon. Members in the Chamber know about.
  I must remind Baroness Thatcher of the figures; I must remind her of reality. The average of public expenditure as a proportion of domestic product throughout her time of office, from 1979 to 1990, was about 44 per cent., considerably greater than the present proportion—and that is decreasing. So much for Baroness Thatcher.
  448
  There is an extraordinary state of affairs. The economy is almost unprecedentedly sound. Last year, we had growth of about 2.5 per cent. We hope for about 3 per cent. this year. Inflation is down to levels that most hon. Members in the Chamber cannot remember. Unemployment has decreased, month after month, for two or three years.
  The present state of the economy is extraordinary. Even more so is the fact that that process has continued for rather a long time. After all, growth in output revived, the recession came to an end, in the spring of 1992—about six months, incidentally, before we left the ERM, in case there are any illusions on that score.
  We have never had—at least not in my lifetime or since the second world war—almost five years of continuous growth without running into the balance of payments constraints and the inflationary constraints of which we were reminded by the distinguished right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who was Chief Secretary in the Wilson Government and who has every reason to remember the constraints that operated on the British economy in the bad old days.
  That is an extraordinary state of affairs, which demands an explanation. I believe that it is consistent only with the notion that there has been a genuine supply side revolution in the British economy, and that that genuine supply side revolution in the British economy has taken place under a Conservative Government.
  The media, and many people in the country who comment on political affairs, do not even consider that revolution. They are obsessed by what one might call the superficialities, or the flotsam and jetsam, of politics. But what counts, and what will be remembered in historical retrospect, is the underlying reality, which is that the tide is strong. It is bearing forward the British economy; it is bearing forward our nation, and it will bear our party forward to victory at the next general election.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: It is tempting to follow the hon. Gentlemen who have sought to analyse those fashionable slogans of "one nation" and "stakeholder economy", but I shall not do so. There seems to be a great danger. In the modern, competitive market economy—I believe that that is a phrase now used for capitalism—with globalisation, the fashionable inflation targets and control by central bankers, it may not be possible to have such an economy and, as well, have either one-nation Toryism or a stakeholder economy if what we mean by "stakeholder economy" is the sort of social cohesion in which western European countries believe. I do not know and I am delving into deep water. I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are looking at me and perhaps I should return to the Bill's Second Reading.
  I will not talk about the economy or tax changes, but about a subject that is, perhaps, marginal in this period of pre-election fever: the length and complexity of the Bill and of previous legislation introduced by successive Conservative Governments since 1979. Many hon. Members have commented on the fact that the Bill is 408 pages long. I believe that it is the longest Finance Bill in history, although there might have been a longer one. It is made up of two volumes because, apart from the complexity of its drafting, it cannot be physically handled in one volume.

  449
  The figures compiled by the Inland Revenue in a report show that since 1979 the average length of Finance Bills introduced by successive Conservative Governments has been almost 200 pages—193 pages. In the period from 1974 to 1979—the period of old Labour and those terrible socialists, Lords Wilson and Callaghan—the figure was 103. In the years since 1979, under Conservative Governments, Finance Bills have doubled in length and complexity. Those Governments were elected on a promise to roll back the frontiers of the state—or socialism, I am not sure. If the promise was to roll back socialism, they have kept it; if the promise was to roll back the state, they have not. Conservative Governments have used the state in an almost Leninist way to roll back the frontiers of socialism—perhaps that is the justification.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I remember the pompous speeches of Opposition spokesmen before 1979. They said that taxation and Finance Bills were about raising money and nothing else—certainly not some terrible thing such as social or fiscal engineering. What we have seen—and it is borne out in the Inland Revenue's report if one reads between the lines—is a massive attempt at fiscal and social engineering using Finance Bills.
  Those of us who occasionally read professional publications on accountancy and taxation know that, over a number of years—not just this year or last year—hardly a month has gone by without those publications including condemnations of and concerns and complaints about the length, complexity and obscurity of tax legislation under successive Conservative Governments. It became so bad that the Inland Revenue was asked to commission a report, on which it did a good job, called "The Path to Tax Simplification". It recommended that over the next five years most of the legislation introduced by the Inland Revenue over the past nine or 10 years should be redrafted. The Government accepted the recommendation, so we now have the prospect of the 408 pages of the Finance Bill being redrafted over the next five years.
  The poor Inland Revenue—I feel sorry for it—says that the legislation is to be redrafted in
  "simpler, more user-friendly language, which will be easier for everyone to understand".
  I am not sure who "everyone" is supposed to be. Lawyers have a romantic image of the man on the Clapham omnibus. I do not know whether he or she is to be "everyone", but an idyllic picture is painted of the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus reading on his or her way to work the redrafted, easy-to-read Finance Bill that the Government now promise.
  There has also been a reprehensible tendency to blame the poor old draftsman. I heard the Chief Secretary in his speech—or perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in his speech—say in an offhand remark that parts of the Finance Bill had been drafted by the private sector. That is fine, but the implication is that the parliamentary draftsman has not been up to his job. It is unfair to blame the parliamentary draftsman for what has happened. It is equally unfair to blame the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. Responsibility for the Finance Bill lies with Treasury Ministers.
  450
  Things may have changed since my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and I were in the Treasury, but I doubt it. I remember that a list used to appear around Budget time that was prepared by Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. The list was usually very long and it became longer every year. But Ministers can prune the list and cut proposals from it; they do not have to accept even half of it. The only conclusion that I can draw is that, year after year, including this year, Tory Ministers have had neither the courage nor the will to prune that list. It is important to do so and it is unfair for Ministers to ask parliamentary draftsmen to draft 408 pages in the period between the Budget being prepared and publication of the Finance Bill for Second Reading.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It is easy to criticise Treasury Ministers, but has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Bill implements in law a large number of extra-statutory concessions for which the Public Accounts Committee is always calling to be implemented in Finance Acts? Is not that a welcome addition to the Bill? Are there not a number of measures in the Bill for which the private sector has been asking?
  Mr. Davies: I accept that, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the Inland Revenue report he will see that it makes it clear that at least half the contents of the Bills over the past 10 or 15 years have constituted social engineering by the Government.
  I have a confession to make: a long time ago I was the Minister responsible for probably the most complex and complicated tax legislation introduced in the House. I should not think that anyone much remembers it, thank goodness—it was legislation on developing land tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do remember it."] I am sending shudders through Conservative Members. The legislation was impeccably drafted, clear and concise. It was the distillation of United Kingdom tax law, 900 years of English land law and some Scottish land law—with its feus and sasines—thrown in. Ministers were responsible for that legislation. It was a ministerial decision and, at least in that case, the draftsman was given enough time to draft that complex legislation.
  That brings me to parliamentary time. Throughout the 1980s the time allowed for Standing Committees to discuss and scrutinise Finance Bills has been under threat from a succession of Conservative Governments. There have been more threats of timetables and guillotines and actual timetables and guillotines. It used to be unheard of for a Finance Bill to be guillotined in Committee. The Conservatives have produced longer Bills and used their power—I believe that it was an abuse of power—to reduce the opportunity to scrutinise the Bills.
  Conservative Governments had such comfortable majorities that they did not bother worrying about those conventions of the constitution. There are conventions in the British constitution and those conventions are much more important when the constitution is unwritten and we have a first-past-the-post electoral system, with which I agree. However, time and again, Governments with comfortable majorities have been arrogant and have ridden rough-shod over the conventions and the result has been poorer, more complex and more obscure fiscal and other legislation.
  In addition, there has been pressure from all sides of the House, even from the Opposition—I find that amazing—to turn working in the House into a nine-to-five

  451
  job, four days a week. If that happens, the House of Commons will be unable to scrutinise Bills such as we are debating tonight. All those pressures have contributed to the complexity of legislation and the difficulties in analysing and interpreting it.
  As a consequence, the courts have gradually moved away from a literal interpretation of legislation. There have been other reasons for that, and I am not seeking to suggest that the complexity and length of legislation is the only reason, but when the courts are faced with complex legislation, they tend to move away from the literal construction—which is usually in favour of the citizen, be it in taxation or criminal matters—and look for the purpose of the statute.
  I hate to mention Pepper v. Hart in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but that case was the high watermark. During inquisitorial proceedings in a case between two parties, the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer, the House of Lords decided to overturn the rule of centuries that the courts did not read Hansard in construing legislation. It may be right that Hansard should be read, but that was not a matter for a court to decide. It should have been decided after analysis by the Law Commission, which exists to do just that, however, the Law Lords, who have little experience of parliamentary procedure, in an adversarial contest, made a decision that has considerable consequences for professionals and others who now have to read Hansard when they give advice. If they do not read Hansard and it contains something relevant that they should see, they can be sued for professional negligence so have to read Hansard at quite considerable costs. The high watermark has been Pepper v. Hart, as the courts move towards examining the purpose of legislation.
  The fact that the courts now look at Hansard increases the power of the Executive. Perhaps it is already happening, but, especially with the looser simplified drafting about which we have been told, Ministers will be tempted to read out in Committee well-crafted statements, written for them by the Inland Revenue or whoever, from which they will not deviate under questioning. The courts will then read Hansard and use those statements to fill in the blanks created either because they cannot understand the complicated drafting or by the alternative simplified drafting. That will increase the power of the Executive. Of course, the reformed interpretation favoured by courts also increases the power of the judiciary.
  I may be old-fashioned, but I believe that the best protection for the citizen, especially in fiscal and communal matters, is the close scrutiny of perhaps complex but well-drafted and precise legislation in the House so that the literal interpretation can be applied by the courts and if there is a conflict or a problem, the benefit of the doubt is given to the citizen. I would prefer such a system to the way in which everything is moving. I hope we are wrong and that we can draw it back.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I have been following his line of argument closely. Does he agree, however, that it is to be welcomed that, wherever possible, the Inland Revenue consults widely on clauses which ultimately will find their way into Finance Bills? There is a real attempt to enable those who will be
  452
  affected by certain legislation to have a say at an early stage in the drafting of a proposed parliamentary enactment of such legislation.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House very long, but history reveals that when some of us were Ministers, we published entire Bills as draft clauses. The development land tax legislation was published as draft clauses as was the banking legislation that I introduced in 1976 or 1977. When the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, however, the policy of publishing draft clauses was stopped and they took a Leninist attitude to pushing through all legislation as quickly as possible. The Minister cannot say now, 16 or 17 years later, that draft clauses are a good thing. Why have not we seen more of them since 1979?
  Resimplification will be a major task. It is no good the Minister thinking that he has solved the problem by spending £25 million and asking for everything to be redrafted as that will also cause problems. The main way to deal with the matter is not to introduce Bills that are 408 pages long and expect the House of Commons to scrutinise them.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: When I asked the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) whether the present level of interest rates were too high, too low or about right, he did not answer the question, but we should not be surprised about that because he does not answer any questions on matters of economic policy. He said that long-term interest rates are too high and something should be done about that. When he was asked what should be done, he said we should increase investment as if that would bring down interest rates.
  Apart from the fact that that is economic gobbledegook, the reason why we have higher real interest rates than Germany is that we have a poor record on inflation over a 35-year period and people still do not believe that successive British Governments will commit themselves to consistently low inflation, although the very low inflation under the present Government will clearly remain in place under the present arrangements vis-á-vis the Bank of England.
  One reason why we have a wide differential is that the markets naturally fear that we may have another Labour Government and Labour has the worst record of all on inflation. Labour Members may find that amusing, but in 1975 we had 26 or 27 per cent. inflation under Denis Healey and gilts, which were issued on a coupon of about 15.5 per cent.—the highest ever interest—not surprisingly, were known in the market as Healeys. Gilts are no longer issued at those excessive rates of interest today because we have low interest rates and low inflation, but the markets fear what Labour might do because of its appalling record. That is one reason why we have to bear the burden of higher real interest rates. To believe that increased investment will somehow solve the problem is to get the argument the wrong way around.
  If one were to single out one criterion against which to assess whether the Government are pursuing a successful economic policy, undoubtedly opinions would differ as to what that should be. However, I believe that many people would choose to use the level and the trend of unemployment. On that score, the Government's record is one of the most successful in the European Union.

  453
  Of course, it suits the hon. Member for Oxford, East simply to quote the absolute figures and to say that the present level of unemployment is still too high at 2.2 million. I agree with that. However, we should compare our record with that of the other major member states of the European Union. Unemployment in France is rising and Germany faces considerable difficulties because of the huge on-costs associated with the employment of labour. Spain, under a socialist Government, has an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. Those countries have much higher rates of unemployment than Britain and they do not know how to tackle the problem.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: While the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons, will he recognise, first, that we are not talking about absolute numbers: we are talking about people, their lives and their prospects of making a decent livelihood? Secondly, will he tell the House why average unemployment under the last Labour Government was 960,000 when it has been 2.4 million under this Government since 1979?
  Mr. Tim Smith: I agree that the absolute number refers to an absolute number of people. That is why I have said that 2.2 million is an unacceptably high level of unemployment. My point is that the Government have put in place policies that are designed to decrease the level of unemployment by reducing employers' payroll costs. For example, the £500 million that will be raised by the landfill tax will be used to reduce a levy on employment. That is extremely welcome.
  The Labour party wants to impose extra costs on employers—I suspect that that is what the Leader of the Opposition meant in his speech about a stakeholder economy. That is what the social chapter is about: it would introduce the very costs which are driving German manufacturers to ensure that products are manufactured anywhere but in Germany, where manufacturing costs are high. Although the present level of unemployment is too high, we can be proud of our job creation record.
  Another criterion that one might choose is manufacturing productivity. Our record in that area is even better, as all independent assessments show that we have narrowed the gap with Germany very substantially in the past 16 years. On that basis, I believe that we have a successful and a growing economy.
  I now turn to the Finance Bill and to the subject of self-assessment, which the hon. Member for Oxford, East touched upon. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the principle of self-assessment. I understand that the Opposition support the introduction of self-assessment and the Public Accounts Committee has argued consistently for a change from the prior to the current basis of assessment for the self-employed.
  Self-assessment has had a long programme of introduction and I pay tribute to the Inland Revenue for the work that it has done. It has bent over backwards to consult taxpayers, to whom it has sent sample tax returns. We must accept the fact that, when one introduces a change of that kind, some people will pay no attention to it until the new tax return lands on their doormats. However, I do not believe that we should criticise the Inland Revenue, which has made a great effort to consult taxpayers.
  454
  The Inland Revenue recently sent a tax return consultation pack to all Members of Parliament. I do not know whether anyone has taken the trouble to read it, but when I received the pack requesting my comments I telephoned the Inland Revenue. Three officials came to see me and I discussed with them the form that they proposed to send to Members of Parliament. It seemed to be unnecessarily complex compared with the present system. I am glad to say that the form has been simplified considerably for the latest round of consultation. However, I understand that Inland Revenue must ensure that every contingency and possible situation is dealt with, which leads to a degree of complexity.
  I think that we should allow the measure to proceed. I shall be interested to hear the arguments that are advanced in Committee, as I do not see how one can defer one part of it while introducing another. That does not make a great deal of sense to me, but we shall discuss the matter in detail in Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to tax simplification. I welcome the report that the Inland Revenue published before Christmas to comply with section 160 of the Finance Act 1995. I particularly welcome the fact that the Inland Revenue seems to have had a substantial change of heart and that there appears to be the political will to address the problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman was correct to draw the attention of the House to the speed at which the size of Finance Bills has increased. I have the figures for recent years. In 1986 the Finance Bill was 265 pages long. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that this year's legislation comprised 408 pages. In 1993 it was 415 pages, in 1994 it was 616 pages and last year it was 505 pages. So we have seen a huge growth in the size of the legislation. Of course, the problem is not simply the growth in the legislation—if it were clear and easy to understand perhaps we would have no difficulty. More important is the complexity of the legislation.
  I think that Inland Revenue has been persuaded that the problem is of sufficient scale that it must be tackled. I believe that the exercise will be justified in terms of the benefits that will accrue, although I know that some cost will be involved. However, I do not suppose that the man on the Clapham omnibus will be much the wiser. We are currently concerned that professional tax advisers—accountants and lawyers—find the legislation difficult to understand. That is not a satisfactory situation and we must address the problem. Fortunately, most taxpayers are pay-as-you-earn and they do not need to read the Finance Bill every year—which is just as well—but we must produce intelligible legislation for sophisticated taxpayers and professional tax advisers. I believe that the Treasury is now committed to a programme that will deliver the desired benefits.
  Of course, some consideration must be given to the parliamentary procedures, as the change will fall somewhere between consolidation legislation and the major changes in the law that we associate with a Finance Bill. As it will give rise to voluminous documentation, I believe that the Procedure Committee should consider how we shall deal with it.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned Pepper v. Hart. I do not think that the concerns are as great as he suggested because Pepper v. Hart applies only where the law is absolutely ambiguous and it is not possible for the

  455
  court to determine what Parliament intended simply on the basis of the words of the Act. It is only in those circumstances—which hopefully shall be rare when we simplify the wording of the legislation—that the courts will refer to Hansard to see what was said.
  However, I agree that it must affect the way in which Ministers approach matters in Committee if they know that their every word will be scrutinised in the same manner as the words of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in the matter of Pepper v. Hart, which I understand related to the 1976 or 1977 finance legislation. I welcome the tax simplification programme and I hope that we shall be able to make good progress with it.
  Finally, while I welcome the fact that charities will be assisted by the increase in the maximum amount under the give-as-you-earn scheme from £75 to £100 per month, they will lose out as a result of a reduction in the standard rate of income tax. Although the Government have done a great deal in the past few years to encourage people to give money to charities—there is no tax reason to prevent it, as it is an extremely tax-efficient exercise—charities have been subjected to considerable extra taxation. I refer particularly to the value added tax burden on charities.
  The Charities Tax Reform Group has made proposals to Treasury Ministers for a scheme that would provide some relief to charities on the VAT that they incur—not on the costs of running the charity but the charitable services that they provide. I am sorry that up to now it has not been possible to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends of the merits of such a scheme, which would not be hugely expensive but which would be of great benefit to many charities that do such important work in our community.
  Notwithstanding its length and complexity, I welcome the Bill, in particular the balanced tax changes and tax reductions included within it, and I look forward to the debates in Committee.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I have listened carefully and with interest to comments that have been made by hon. Members, on both sides of the House, about the increasing length and complexity of tax legislation. I am sure that with legislation, as with any other document, the longer, more complicated and detailed it becomes, the more likely it is that one will lose sight of the strategic objective—the purpose for which the legislation is intended.
  I take the House back to 1992 to the general election, when the Conservative party hustled its way back into power with fanciful and fabricated allegations about Labour's tax plans. I believe that the Conservative party's posters warning the public of Labour's tax bombshell will come back to haunt it, because the reality in Finance Acts since then is that the tax bombshell has been imposed by the Conservative party. I asked the Library to compare the tax burden under the Conservatives during their 16 or 17 years in office with that under the previous Labour Government. I expected the rosy picture painted by Conservative Members to be somewhat dented, but nothing prepared me for the magnitude of the Tory tax rises, not just in the few years since the 1992 general election but in the whole period during which they have been in power.
  In every year since 1979, taxes have been higher in real terms than in 1978–79, when Labour was in government, and higher in real terms than in any year during the last
  456
  Labour Government. Last year, the Government raised £236.6 billion in taxes. In 1978–79, at current prices, the Labour Government raised £170.9 billion. In cash terms, the Labour Government, in their last year of office, raised some £58.6 billion, which shows, among other things, the inflation that we have had since the Conservatives have been in office, because the pound is now worth barely more than one third of its 1978–79 value.
  If the Conservatives had kept tax down in real terms to the level of the last Labour Government, they would have collected almost £0.75 trillion less—£735 billion less—from the pockets of British taxpayers. That amounts to some £32,000 per household in Britain—or more than £2,000 per year for each of the 16 years that they have been in office. Conservative Members might well say that one would expect the overall tax burden to rise because of overall growth in the economy. That is a weak argument from a party that promised to cut public spending in real terms, to cut the size, power and spending of the state, but it is an argument that I take seriously.
  I asked the Library to look at the tax take under the Conservatives and under the previous Labour Government as a percentage of our national income. In 15 out of the 16 years in which the Conservatives have been in office, the proportion of the country's gross domestic product that they have taken in tax has been higher than under the previous Labour Government. In 1978–79, under Labour, taxation took 34.3 per cent. of GDP. During the 16 years that the Conservatives have been in power, it has averaged 37.3 per cent. of GDP—three full percentage points more than under the previous Labour Government. That illustrates clearly—the figures were prepared by the economic, policy and statistics section of the Library—the real cost of Conservative Finance Bills.
  In 1987, in the Conservative manifesto, the Conservatives promised:
  "we are engaged in steadily reducing the share of the nation's income taken by the State."
  That was and is a lie. Between 1979 and 1987, the percentage of GDP taken in taxation rose from 34.3 per cent. under Labour to 38.1 per cent. under the Conservatives.
  The 1987 manifesto also promised:
  "In the next Parliament:
  We aim to reduce the burden of taxation."
  What happened? Between 1987 and 1992, the tax burden imposed by the Conservatives rose from £147 billion to £221 billion, or at constant prices from £211 billion to £231 billion—a 9.2 per cent. increase in the tax burden in real terms.
  The same approach was taken at the last general election. In their 1992 manifesto, the Conservatives said:
  "We are the only party that understands the need for low taxation."
  They may understand it, but they do not do it.
  Since the last election, the tax burden for a typical family in Britain has increased by £600 a year. The Government really do need to give the British public, who are faced with an ever-mounting burden of taxation, an answer to the question: where has their money gone? Some £14 billion was squandered on the poll tax—an ill-conceived and failed policy, which was eventually abandoned but at great cost to the taxpayer. The NHS administrative reforms cost an additional £1 billion a year.

  457
  Rail privatisation proposals will cost some £850 million a year. Low pay subsidies—the payment of family credit to people on ever-lower wages—cost the average taxpayer £100 a year. The common agricultural policy costs an average family £20 a week.
  It was Benjamin Franklin who said:
  "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
  The two go together. These Tory tax rises will result in the death of the Tory party. If one looks at Conservative Members, one sees a party bickering with itself, Members arguing with each other, trying to justify their individual positions. One sees a party in its death throes. Some Conservative Members realise that. Some do not. Those who do not are those who have swallowed their own propaganda about Tory tax cuts so often that they have come to believe them. That lie is a poison for the people of this country and it is eating away at the heart of the Conservative party. It is that poison that is giving the Conservative party such an ugly final few months before it fails and dies.
  6.38 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: In the Budget debate, I quoted lain Macleod's most frequently quoted view that a Budget that looked bad on Budget day might look a lot better by the time we came to the Finance Bill, and conversely, if it was good at the time of the Budget the reverse was the case. I feel bound to say that we are now debating the Finance Bill. It looked pretty good on Budget day and it looks pretty good now. It was entirely appropriate to the economic circumstances in which the Chancellor found himself, and I felt that he was given a grossly unfair press the next day. In fact, the economy is now in a very good state in terms of the level of inflation and prospects of growth. Having said that, however, let me add that there are serious dangers ahead in terms of both timing and balance—in particular, the balance between fiscal and monetary policy.
  When I said what I did at the time of the Budget, I did not envisage the extent to which kin Macleod's name would be headline news by the time of Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Following Lady Thatcher's speech, numerous headlines have referred to Mr. Macleod—who, it must be admitted, was the personification of one-nation Toryism. Margaret Thatcher and I learnt our trade—if I may put it that way—dealing with Finance Bills on the Opposition Front Bench under lain Macleod's tutelage; I do not recall her referring disparagingly to one-nation Toryism then, or using words such as "baloney". Had she done so, I would have remembered, because lain Macleod would undoubtedly have made an appropriate response.
  I find it sad that Lady Thatcher is so out of touch. She now seems even to confuse one-nation Toryism with an enthusiasm for European federalism. I believe that the Prime Minister, like me, is a one-nation Tory, but neither of us is in favour of European federalism, and what is nowadays described as a "coded attack" struck me as entirely wrong in this instance.
  It is true, however, that the Bill needs to be put into a European context. Certain clauses refer to the European Community's second VAT simplification directive. I was responsible for steering the original VAT legislation
  458
  through the House; the so-called simplification directive, and the related clauses in the Bill, merely seek to make less complicated a change that complicated the original legislation. The provisions continue for pages and pages, allegedly simplifying the position, but if the arrangements had been left as they were when I introduced them there would have been no need for "simplification". The position is already much simpler than it will be after the implementation of the clauses and a huge schedule.
  There is, however, a more important reason for seeing the Bill in a European context. Clearly, part of the Government's general fiscal policy—indeed, in a sense, the central part—relates to whether we are likely to meet the so-called Maastricht criteria, regardless of whether we decide to participate in European monetary union. Countries throughout the European Union seem to be trying to meet those criteria. As I pointed out in an intervention following the Prime Minister's return from the last European summit, there is considerable confusion over the expression "single currency". It is important to get the semantics right. It is inconceivable that we will achieve a single currency across the entire European Union as it currently stands; we are discussing whether there should be a core currency. That is relevant to the Bill, and to the general attitude to budget deficits.
  The Chancellor has a wider remit than the Finance Bill, although it is part of the policy. If there is to be a core currency, and if the United Kingdom is to achieve the Maastricht criteria and a degree of convergence, he must consider whether it is advantageous for the UK to join the core currency. Those who join the currency will give up, for all time, the main means of adjusting to differential movements in costs and prices. If they join prematurely, they will risk facing either patches of endemic and indefinite unemployment, or a need for large subsidies from one area to another. The United Kingdom is, after all, engaged in a global rather than a purely European economy, and it is therefore important for us to make the choice; but insufficient consideration has been given to whether we should be inside the core currency—if, indeed, it comes about.
  There is also concern about the timetable. There is an increasing tendency for countries throughout the European Union to rush—or attempt to rush—towards the Maastricht criteria in relation to budget deficits. It cannot be seriously disputed that that is likely to have a severe deflationary effect. I read with great interest in this morning's Financial Times a summary of an interview with Mr. Alexandre Lamfalussy, president of the European Monetary Institute: apparently, he has
  "rejected the idea that Europe is heading for a recession that would jeopardise European monetary union."
  Surely that has the position back to front. The danger is that if we rush towards a policy of cutting budget deficits throughout Europe, a move towards EMU will jeopardise employment. Mr. Lamfalussy, however, is enthusiastic about such policies.
  In the context of a Finance Bill that attempts to adjust the fiscal balance, it is important for us to encourage the Chancellor—in his wider remit—to take such issues into account and, in particular, to suggest to our European partners that it is dangerous to take such action.
  In any event, I find it extraordinary that we should consider meeting the Maastricht criteria on such matters as budget deficits and, at a certain point, say, "Snap!

  459
  We will join." We have no reason to suppose that those circumstances will continue over any length of time. Surely the countries concerned ought to have met the criteria for at least two or three years; otherwise their commitment is irrevocable. Short of the kind of break-up that we saw in the Soviet Union, once a country is part of a single currency it is stuck with it, and so far there has been no adequate analysis of the ways of escaping.
  Mr. Forman: Is not my right hon. Friend saying something even more significant than he has let on? Is not he saying that, if monetary union over any area within the 15 member states of the European Union is to succeed in the longer term, it must be made reversible in some sense?
  Sir Terence Higgins: As I was saying when I gave way to my hon. Friend, no one seems to have analysed that properly. As I said before, the idea that one can establish a single currency in the whole of the European Union—especially now that, I am happy to say, it has now been expanded—is wholly unrealistic on any conceivable time scale. In the context of the Bill, I think that the Chancellor needs to be encouraged to bring a sense of realism to such matters and a sense of the dangers of proceeding in the way in which Mr. Lamfalussy, for example, envisages.
  I was in other parts of the European Union last week and found that increasing concern of the type that I have just expressed was very apparent. After all, other members of the European Union are proceeding against a background of growth rates worse than ours. I am thinking of, for example, Germany.
  It is important to bear in mind the implications of the problems that I have outlined for the balance between fiscal and monetary policy. Effectively, we are creating an ever tighter fiscal policy but with total disregard for the economic situation. That is very strange. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will not be able to recall any Government saying that they were going to cut Budget deficits with no account being taken of the level of unemployment or what stage of the economic cycle they were in at the time. Regardless of where we are in the economic cycle, the idea recently has been that we must cut deficits.
  I view with perhaps more equanimity than the Chancellor the extent of the Budget deficit when we are in an economic situation such as this. Clearly, inflation is now well under control, but I am worried that the rate of growth is not as fast as it could be. Of course, when the Budget was announced, many people thought that the growth rate predicted by the Chancellor was unlikely to be achieved unless there were also cuts in interest rates. I am glad that the Chancellor subsequently cut interest rates, and I believe that the Budget and the Bill provide a good background for him to make further moves in that direction.
  The relationship between the deficit, the money supply and the rate of interest is complex, but a further tightening of fiscal policy should enable the deficit to be reduced and be financed at lower interest rates without generating further inflationary pressures or an excessive increase in the money supply. I hope that in this context, too, the Chancellor will consider timing and balance.
  I wish to say a word or two about the comments of one of my successors as a Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I have much sympathy
  460
  with what he said. The first time that a draft clause was added to a Finance Bill for a particular tax change was in connection with value added tax. I commend that to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench as it is a good innovation.
  One of the effects of the timetable change to our Finance Bill debates this year and for the previous couple of years is that there is very little time for consultation between the Budget being announced and the Finance Bill being published. Most of the available time is taken up by the Christmas and new year holiday. At this point, it might be worth commenting in passing on our economic statistics on growth. The entire country effectively goes on holiday for two weeks at Christmas and new year. Two weeks is quite a high percentage of the year as there are only 52 weeks in one year—perhaps we should adjust the gross national product figures accordingly.
  The so-called unified Budget has been introduced, but we still have no opportunity to debate expenditure in any great detail. We shall grind through the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, the Committee stage upstairs and the Report stage, all of which deal with taxation, but there is still no time to discuss the expenditure side of the equation. Having said that, I believe that the Budget was an appropriate one.
  It is a matter of some concern to our constituents that when they see our proceedings on television there appear to be very few of us in the Chamber. That has been exacerbated by the fact that many hon. Members now have a direct feed line from the Chamber to their offices. One is sometimes surprised when, once one has finished speaking and gone to the Tea Room, colleagues there say that they wholly disagree with what one has just said although they were not in the Chamber to hear the speech. The only solution is to have cameras facing in the other direction too so that the public can see hon. Members busily signing their letters while watching proceedings in the Chamber.
  The prospects for the economy are now extremely good, but there is a real danger in an over-enthusiastic approach to proceedings in Europe. I firmly believe that being in Europe is the right way forward, but I am worried that the single market may be endangered if only some of its members join a single currency. None the less, the Finance Bill is an important building block, and I believe that the Chancellor and Treasury team should be congratulated.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: Writing nearly 300 years ago, Pope could have been talking about the Government and the Bill when he wrote of the "wounded snake" that
  " drags its slow length along."
  At 408 pages long, the Bill represents a 15 per cent. rise in output from the combined talents of the parliamentary and private sector drafting staff compared with the previous year. It has a third more clauses, adding to the 1,500 pages of primary tax legislation already introduced in the past five years. However, its size cannot obscure its failings.
  This is a wholly inadequate Bill. Never before has such a big fig leaf been used to cover so little. The simple truth is that it does nothing to encourage investment and jobs,

  461
  nothing to provide opportunities for all and nothing to curb the excesses of the privatised utilities or improve the profitability of small businesses.
  The Bill does nothing to close tax loopholes. Because of the Government's incompetence, taxpayers are subsidising corporate raiders—like Granada in its bid for Forte and National Power in its offer for Southern Electricity—to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds through a loophole involving the use of special dividends in takeovers. When will the Government act in the public interest and end this scandalous state of affairs? This fig leaf of a Bill hides a Budget packet of minuscule proportions, and everyone knows it.
  The CBI said of the Budget that it
  "would have preferred to see more measures to encourage investment."
  The Federation of Small Businesses is on record as saying that it was "extremely disappointed" by the Chancellor's speech and that
  "there has been absolutely no encouragement for growth".
  Its chairman said:
  "I doubt whether the speech will win many votes from our members".
  I think that she is right. Opinion polls also show that the British people have rumbled the Budget and the Government.
  Even Government Back Benchers have twigged that the Budget is not up to much. The hon. Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls), who is not here at the moment, is the chairman of the Small Business Bureau. He was reported in The Daily Telegraph of 29 October as saying that he was
  "disappointed at the absence of measures to encourage investment, particularly among businesses in the £3m to £50m a year turnover bracket."
  He is right to be disappointed. The United Kingdom is currently 11 th in the European Union in terms of investment per head of population—that is not nearly good enough. Nearly three years ago, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who I understand is feeling persecuted these days, optimistically claimed that the 1993 Finance Bill was
  "putting in place the biggest ever deregulatory package for small businesses."—[Official Report, 26 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 731.]
  Parliamentary rules and natural politeness prevent me from saying exactly what I think of that claim. Suffice to say, I have not met a single business man who thinks that there is less red tape today than there was three years ago. Nor have I seen a single credible survey of businesses which suggests that the regulatory burden has decreased.
  Speaking in the debate on the previous Finance Bill, the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken), last year's Chief Secretary—who could also be forgiven for thinking "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me", to quote the late Kenneth Williams—said:
  "As for simplifying the tax system, the unwelcome size and weight of the Finance Bill highlights the strange paradox that simplification can be a complicated business, at least in terms of legislation."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 596.]
  I am still relatively new to the House, but I recognise absolute rubbish when I see it. I trust that this year's Chief Secretary will have none of it, and that in Committee he
  462
  will devote his full attention to the many inquiries we will make and amendments on which we will probe him, rather than be diverted by a certain inquiry elsewhere.
  In speaking in favour of the Opposition amendment, I must point out that the Government ignore at their peril the overwhelming public support for welfare to work measures, for tackling the privatised utilities abuses, for implementing Greenbury in full, for cutting VAT on domestic fuel and for measures to stimulate long-term investment.
  People and businesses in Dudley, West wanted a very different Budget. I shall highlight three areas on which, should I be appointed to serve on the Standing Committee, I intend to consider tabling new clauses. First, I remain as convinced as I was last year that there is a compelling case for specific, limited tax breaks to help hard-hit high streets that have been devastated by major, out-of-town retail developments such as Merry Hill in my constituency. I also believe that the Government could be far more imaginative in using tax breaks to encourage investment and economic regeneration.
  Secondly, changes are needed to the tax treatment of retained profits in privately owned businesses. The tax system discourages retained profits, as it is more tax efficient to withdraw capital and invest it in another's business. That needs to be changed.
  I would also like the small firms loan guarantee scheme to be reformed. It is not particularly popular in the market, and it is certainly not a competitive package when compared with that offered to German or Japanese firms. We must seriously consider adopting the German and Japanese models of encouraging long-term investment. As a recent 3i report says, Britain's small companies have the
  "shortest financing horizons in Europe".
  The report also states that they have
  "inherently more risky capital structures".
  That must be changed and the reform of the small firms loan guarantee scheme could play a role in that.
  Thirdly, the deregulation initiative has been a major disappointment, and the small business litmus test is not working adequately. The Government are still listening too much to large companies and too little to small businesses. The Government have also chickened out on proposals to merge the Inland Revenue with the Contributions Agency. I believe that they should not only do that but join those institutions together with most of Customs and Excise. A number of major improvements could be made.
  The Budget offers little or nothing for small businesses, and it does not address the real needs of the United Kingdom economy. It allows the perpetuation of major tax loopholes and abuses of the system, and I urge the Government to introduce new clauses to change that.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the time you have been in the Chair we have heard a wide, interesting and even discursive range of speeches, which must have been loosely connected because they were in order. I have benefited from the thoughts expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

  463
  I shall inject a little party political enthusiasm into the debate—but not too much. I took the opportunity when I was waiting to speak to read the Labour amendment more closely. It is an extraordinary paragraph, as I shall seek to show. These days, more clarity and honesty come from hon. Members on the Opposition Back Benches than from those on the Front Bench, who seem to work on the principle of "can't say, won't say". We had another example of that today. Whenever the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was questioned about anything, he took refuge in a great deal of waffle, as has been mentioned.
  I shall attempt to elucidate, for the benefit of the House and posterity, the words of the Opposition amendment. It mentions the desirability of a boost for long-term investment, as the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said. If there is ever to be a Labour Government, that will imply some quite serious changes in the tax regime to dividends and some significant changes to the burden of proof in contested takeovers. Those two points are of quasi-industrial policy rather than finance policy, and people outside should take them into account.
  The amendment refers to the introduction of a welfare to work strategy. I am not quite sure what that means and we received no clarification from the hon. Member for Oxford, East. I suspect that it has something to do with the introduction of a statutory minimum wage and signing up to the European social chapter, but unless the Labour party intends to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for compulsory private insurance, I fail to understand what that slogan means.
  We hear much from the Opposition about a windfall tax on the utilities. It is a favourite refuge of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who uses it every time we ask where the money will come from. Such a tax is economically illiterate. The hon. Gentleman gives the clear impression that the Labour party would seek to fund many recurrent expenditure commitments with a one-off windfall tax. That does not add up and it would do considerable damage to many of the small shareholders attracted to our share-owning democracy through privatisation of the utilities.
  The amendment also mentions the old chestnut of cutting VAT on domestic fuel—something about which Labour Members were confused when they failed to vote for proposals tabled by the Liberal party to cut VAT by even more. Yet the only likely result of such a cut would be to reduce revenue substantially with no obvious way of making up the shortfall. The Labour party would have to address that problem in a future Finance Bill, if it ever had the chance.
  The amendment also mentions implementing the Greenbury report in full, yet there seems to be confusion in new Labour about the ability of middle and senior management to be substantial stakeholders in a booming economy. I do not believe that the economy would be booming under a Labour Government, but they might inherit the fruits of Conservative good management of the economy. At any rate, all those in middle and senior management should be warned that they will not be expected or allowed to be part of the stakeholder society.
  In the Budget debate before Christmas, and since, there has been a lot of talk about reforming and simplifying the private finance initiative. Try as hard as one might to elucidate what the Opposition have in mind, it seems to
  464
  be very much to be a policy of calculated ambiguity. I, for one, am not yet clear whether the Labour party is in favour of the PFI and wants more of it, or is against it and wants less of it. A certain difficulty arises because the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) claims to have invented it some years ago, in the transport sector. It is clear, however, that some of his hon. Friends are less sure about the PFI, because they believe that it is simply a way of getting some lumps of public expenditure off the books on to the private sector accounts.
  We heard some very confusing words from the hon. Member for Oxford, East—some of them in answer to my intervention—on the subject of self-assessment. The hon. Gentleman and the Opposition amendment seem to call for the reform of that great scheme, which has been many years in preparation. I, too, commend the Revenue on the way in which it has sought to consult everybody about it. When I questioned the hon. Gentleman on that point in an innocent and friendly way, as is my wont, I gathered that the Opposition's policy is little more than one of prevarication, and possibly partial reform. I shall try to explain later why that would probably be worse than no reform. If one is to introduce self-assessment, one needs to be bold and comprehensive. If one sets out to do it, one needs to do it properly.
  As the House will probably recall, I welcomed the Budget for its responsibility. I welcome the Finance Bill for many of its component parts. It is not the world's most exciting Finance Bill, but in many ways that is a function of the fact that it was a responsible Budget. I am particularly pleased about the 20 per cent. lower tax band on savings income. That change is important and long overdue. Since so much of the taxation on income is now already at 20 per cent., and only at 20 per cent—one third of all taxpayers now pay income tax only at 20 per cent.—it was a sensible extension to introduce the lower rate on savings income.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks taxing income from investment—in this case, investment in a building society—at a lower rate than taxing income from employment is right?
  Mr. Forman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not completely following my argument. I was saying that a third of all income tax payers already pay at 20 per cent. only. As I understand Government policy, which has been frequently spelt out on various occasions, the idea is to move progressively, as and when we can afford it, to making the 20p rate the standard rate of income tax. It is no bad thing to make sure that taxation on income from savings is set at 20 per cent. Contrary to what the Labour party says, those savings are not unearned income, because someone has earned it at some time—either the person himself or herself or perhaps, in the case of inherited income, a family member of an earlier generation. Whichever way one looks at it, that change is a healthy development.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, West was fairly disparaging about the Chancellor's efforts to assist small businesses. None the less, it is welcome that the rate of corporation tax on small businesses has been cut to 24p in the pound. I hope that other measures will flow not only within the Exchequer remit but from the Department of Trade and Industry further to assist small businesses, especially in the realm of credit, late payment and other such problems.

  465
  I was pleased by the measures to give further fiscal encouragement to employee share ownership. Perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest to the House as I am an honorary director of Job Ownership Ltd., which has been campaigning for the very cause of employee share ownership for some considerable time. It is good to see the way in which the Government have responded to pressure from that quarter and others.
  The Finance Bill contains a nice small measure to exonerate vintage cars over the age of 25 years from vehicle excise duty. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) is nodding in approval. It is true that many cars over 25 years of age are excellent vehicles. Members of vintage car clubs in or near my constituency have written to me to say how pleased they are with that small measure.
  The most important thing about the Budget and the Finance Bill in the modern global economy is that they should be understood and, if possible, well received in the markets. It is sometimes thought that the global discipline to which we must now get used applies only to monetary policy and that only that policy must be kept in line with global market opinion. That is no longer the case because, increasingly, monetary, fiscal and supply side policy need to be competitive in the new global economy. The fiscal stance influences the global bond markets greatly, and hence the price that must be paid for money and investment in this country.
  Since Budgets and Finance Bills can help or hinder the supply side of the economy, it is important to consider economic policy as a whole because that is what the markets and market analysts increasingly do. I hope very much that when the House considers Finance Bills in the future, this one included, it will always have in mind the monetary and supply side background, and the real conditions in which all national Governments now have to seek to steer their economies. Increasingly, those economies are no longer national ones but merely subsets of a much larger global economy.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on which I am pleased to serve,
  "You get punished more quickly if you get it wrong in today's global environment."
  How right he is and what a compelling argument for introducing what, by any reckoning, has been a responsible Budget and a responsible Finance Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is therefore to be commended for what he has done. The Budget was well received at the time, if in slightly sotto voce tones, and is proving to have a considerable shelf life, as I predicted. It has already created the fiscal conditions in which it has been prudent and possible to reduce interest rates. It should be possible to repeat that medicine as the year goes by.
  My right hon. and learned Friend had to be cautious in present conditions because of the lack of buoyancy in the revenue—something to which we paid considerable attention in our Select Committee investigation—notably in income tax, corporation tax and VAT, which are three of the big engines of revenue in our economy. As the Select Committee pointed out, it is important to decide—
  466
  we did not come to any final view, so I hope that the Government can help us in due course—whether that lack of buoyancy in the revenue in the year just ending was an aberration or whether it betokens a changed relationship of a more long-term character between the level of domestic activity and the level of taxation collected—in other words, the elasticity and efficiency of the tax system.
  Whatever the final answers to that conundrum may be, the situation underlines the need to recognise that we must strive to keep the system, structure and the rates of taxation in our economy as competitive as possible with other national tax jurisdictions. I have given that message in previous debates and I make no apology for repeating it, because I believe that the House of Commons—the heart of the nation, the supreme legislative body and all the other things on which we pride ourselves—needs to take account of the fact that, in a world of mobile capital and mobile individuals and corporations, we cannot afford to let our system and structure of taxation or our rates of taxation become too far out of line with those of our principal competitors in the OECD countries and in the more super-competitive countries on the Pacific rim and elsewhere. The Pacific rim is quite fashionable these days, so I hope that that point will not be lost on the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).
  We should try to see that our tax system gives the country a continuing comparative advantage, if at all possible, in the increasingly fierce competition for globally mobile capital and increasingly skilled people. In that context, I hope that when circumstances next permit—probably next November—my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will look more favourably than he was able to do last year on measures of bolder tax reform, designed to boost aggregate savings and investment. That was one of the missing pieces in this year's Budget. I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend may have decided eventually that he could not afford that particular political risk, but I hope that he will pull the proposals—perhaps those that I have put to him—out of the drawer again and find out whether there is merit in the idea for future years. This is an early Budget representation for next year.
  This measure would assist people in their efforts to increase their financial security, and of course the Finance Bill has already done quite a bit in relation to long-term care for the elderly, which is to be welcomed. At the same time, it would enable us as a country to generate more of the funds for the extra investment that we shall need to finance the innovation that this country absolutely must have to remain internationally competitive. Without a stronger investment preference than we have exhibited in recent years, and the greater efficiency that can flow from that investment, if well directed, we will fall increasingly far behind in international competition.
  It is therefore worth rehearsing once again the case for a simple, attractive savings incentive scheme to replace tax-exempt special savings accounts, personal equity plans and all the other mechanisms that tend to displace savings from one heading to another rather than to increase aggregate savings. The scheme would be called, say, a personal investment plan—a PIP for short—and would offer perhaps up to £10,000 a year of personal savings in any savings vehicle, to be completely free of tax. It could be self—assessed, which is in tune with the

  467
  flavour of the times, and self-certified, with the need only to have tough penalties for anyone who attempts to defraud the Revenue by not fully and properly declaring revenue from such sources, as from other sources.
  I hope therefore that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider this idea. It is full of merit and would help us to get up the international savings table and hence up the international investment table, which, as I am sure Opposition Members would agree, is important.
  I cannot help but be struck by the extent to which we have debated not only the Bill's substance but some of our procedures. It seems clear—and it has seemed to me for many years to be clear—that, in dealing with such a Bill, its length is obviously a problem for the House. It is significant that the Bill is now in two volumes. However, the length in itself will not necessarily make it more obscure. From time to time, length can clarify if the language used is appropriate.
  If the language were to be merely purposive, as the tax experts say, we would be passing more responsibility to the courts, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) told us in his powerful speech, which I hope Ministers will read because he made some good points. Brevity might have the effect, paradoxically, merely of favouring declaratory law rather than law that removes the burden of doubt and complexity. Clarity may, paradoxically, need more words to explain Parliament's real intentions, but those words should be plainer and clearer—that should be the priority.
  If that does not work—I suspect that none of these well-intentioned aspirations will necessarily work—we may have to revisit the need to reform the House's procedures when dealing with financial legislation of this sort, recalling some of the recommendations, as you will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Armstrong committee report in the early 1980s which the Government did not substantially pursue, except the one for a unified Budget, which they did. We must find ways of making these debates more relevant and more important, not just to the media and the public outside—which is, of course, of interest in a democracy—but, more especially, to our right hon. and hon. Friends who, even as I speak are sitting in their office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, looking at the colour of my tie and noting whether I am self-confident, when they should be in the Chamber listening to my words of wisdom and to those of everyone else.
  We may have to consider some radical procedural measures. I am not going to go into this now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it would be an abuse of your courtesy in allowing me to pursue this point, but you will know that, on the continent, it is common practice for draft clauses and legislation in a preliminary phase to be considered in detail by competent committees, and then for the plenary session to come in at a much later stage to ratify their work. That would indeed be a radical solution and I would press it only if our present procedures are not adequate to deal with Finance Bills as important and complex as this one.
  This is a responsible Budget. It is reflected in an interesting and worthwhile Finance Bill with many good components and I wish the Government well in their endeavours over the coming months.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). If anyone on the Labour Back Benches expresses a view, that is a split in the Labour party, but when the hon. Gentleman expresses a view, that is a suggestion to the Government. He should make his mind up. He and some of his hon. Friends have been a revelation to Labour Members. He has suddenly discovered the global economy. When they attack the Labour Government of 1974–79, some of his hon. Friends forget that there was a global economy then. We all remember what happened during the oil crisis and with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but Conservative Members forget such things.
  When, earlier, the brain drain was being used to justify the Government's policies since 1979, especially those in relation to the rundown of manufacturing industry, I could not help but cast my mind back to the period between 1959 and 1964 when, under a Tory Government, there was also a brain drain—and everyone knew it. It is interesting that, between 1974 and 1979—under Labour—there was no brain drain.
  I must remind the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington of the period 1970 to 1974 when, under a Tory Government, we had record inflation. Conservative Members conveniently forget that time. They poke fun at Labour Members who even hint at regulation in industry, but it was the hon. Gentleman's party that had to move in to prop up Rolls-Royce. I do not hear anything about that. Whenever Labour Members suggest any assistance to major industries, the allegation, as always, is, "That could be nationalisation through the back door." Conservative Members must start to think about where they are going.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury claims that he wants to reduce taxes and that this is a tax-cutting Budget. When we make any proposals or suggestions, Conservative Members say, "Ah. They want to increase expenditure." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why the Government claim that the Conservative party is a tax-cutting party, but lift the cap on local authorities, saying, "You can increase council tax by about 2 per cent." Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.
  Negative equity is a double-edged sword in some ways. It involves not only the 1 million people who have had their homes repossessed, but the inner cities. In the part of Coventry that I represent, especially in the Hillfields, Stokealdermore and Willenhall areas, many shopkeepers are going out of business because of business tax. Furthermore, if they want to sell their property, they cannot. Many of them tell me that they want the Government to introduce some flexibility into that sector and to understand some of the problems of inner cities and areas such as Hillfields. I am sure that some of my colleagues would say the same. We will never regenerate inner cities unless there is some flexibility on business tax. If Treasury Ministers visit the Hillfields area of Coventry, we can show them the effects of the business tax. It is no good Ministers trying to blame local authorities, because what they can do is limited.
  Another issue that will cause concern is rent capping. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Some Conservative Members do not seem to know what the Government are proposing. Rent capping will have a major effect on capital

  469
  investment in council house repairs. Conservative Members say that they want to do something about the inner cities, but they do not intend to do anything about rent capping. I have highlighted two points to which Conservative Members should be, but are not, addressing their minds.
  Some other hon. Members have mentioned the global economy. Treasury Ministers have not yet told us how Britain will compete in the global economy. The general agreement on tariffs and trade and the Pacific rim countries are both important. Although 68 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, we need a positive response from the Government on the Pacific rim countries. I and a number of my colleagues have raised that matter for some time, but the Government do not seem to have a positive strategy for dealing with the global economy.
  Nothing has been done to try to rejuvenate the building industry, which is as vital to the economy as is the industrial part of our economy; they go hand in hand. As long as we have an imbalance, we shall have a problem. We shall have 2.6 million unemployed because both those parts of our economy have a major effect. Nothing is being done in education and training, so if the economy really starts to take off, we shall have a major problem because of a lack of skills. Conservative Members may sit and smile; I do not mind. I suggest that the almost 60 million people outside the Chamber are not smiling as a result of Government policies.
  It is not the Opposition's job at this stage to put forward policies; it is our job to look at the Budget and to highlight the problems with it. We will propose policies at the appropriate time. It is no good Conservative Members trying to deflect the flak to the Opposition when they should be taking the flak for their own actions.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John Butcher: I intend to consider some of the issues that underlie our consideration of the Budget and some of the specific measures in it.
  Not just in economic debates, but in debates on social policy and what we used to call the social wage, we have discussed the growing sense of insecurity felt by people who wonder whether their jobs are jobs for life and whether their work security is that which their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. That factor is prayed in aid when we discuss the so-called feelgood factor and is the background against which we make policy in the House.
  I contend that any political party that claims that it can make people secure in jobs for life is not living in the real world because the real world has changed drastically. Policies made by domestic Governments which it is proposed will do something about job security, but which do not take cognisance of the changes in the global economy, will fail. They must bring along with them a recognition that the world has changed for ever and that the circumstances in which young British people seek their place in the job market have changed for ever.
  What do we do? There is an impact on our social as well as on our economic debates. Companies are producing their solutions and there is lots of jargon out there. In parenthesis, I must point out that the stakeholder debate took place in the mid-1980s under the guidance of
  470
  people such as Professor Charles Handy and has been old hat for the past six or seven years. It has been discarded and people have moved on to other ideas.
  Some of the ideas that companies are applying today are, I am afraid, surrounded by jargon. There are terms such as "business process re-engineering" and—
  Mr. Forman: "Reinventing government".
  Mr. Butcher: Yes, there is "reinventing government". There is an awful phrase, which I do not like, but which has started off a rather worrying debate—the "virtual company".
  A virtual company is one that says, "We have certain core skills. We will protect those skills and develop them. There may be only 1,000 people at the core of our company whose jobs need to be preserved. Whereas we employ 10,000 people around that core 1,000, we may in future employ only 2,000 or 3,000 on short-term contracts. We will buy in the semi-skilled requirements that we may have in keeping our company alive." That virtual company changes its shape, its size, its objectives and its tactics with disconcerting speed.
  If the House will excuse my using the jargon, dare I say that what we must move towards, frightening as it may seem at first blush, is a virtual economy—an economy in which we can have more security than countries that adopt a siege mentality and think, "We shall have more security, but we shall all gradually get poorer together and have within our society a group of people who will never be able to enter the job market." I shall develop that point a little further in the context of this and previous Budgets.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said:
  "UK economic performance in 1994 was impressive."
  It has also said that the UK economy has
  "been made more flexible, competitive and less inflation-prone by path-breaking structural reforms since 1979."
  What are the choices before politicians, industrialists, Chancellors of the Exchequer and putative Chancellors of the Exchequer? There are two. We can have an economy, which we are slowly but surely developing, that is fast on its feet, can respond to pressures and can generate more jobs. One path to security is choice—seeing a job to go to after the one in which one has served for 10 years has disappeared because of global forces. One choice is to generate jobs in a virtual economy.
  The second choice is the one that, day by day, inevitably and remorselessly, is being discredited in the practices of some of our western European colleagues. I refer, of course, to France, Belgium and Spain. Furthermore, after 40 brilliant years, a sclerotic economy is now starting to strangle that wonderful creation which came out of the German wirtschaftswunder. The Germans were fast on their feet in years gone by, but they have now started to opt for security at all costs, even if it means that they, too, must eventually embark on a path down which they become comparatively poorer.
  That second option produces a rather tragic consequence. We rightly envy many parts of the French economy. The French have pursued cleverly their traditional mercantilist approach in terms of world markets and the generation of jobs at home, but the price

  471
  is one that no British Government can tolerate and in France it is becoming more intolerable by the day, as we have seen in the strikes on the streets.
  The price is this: with the French obsession with security for the people who are in work and the price that that exacts is being developed an underclass of people who are detached from their economy and who do not even come into the job market. That cohort is getting larger as years go by. Great flair, brilliance and intellectual pragmatism in tackling their problems is part of the French psyche, but it may be their tragedy. Every now and then, those who think that they know best are caught out by some awful tragedy that their rational minds could not foresee. I detect those factors coming together again in France to produce—perhaps—a second tragedy for them.
  Our approach has been quite different. It is viewed with some suspicion by our continental colleagues, but it is our duty to keep faith with the methods that are working for us so that Europe can look to that torch and see that there is another way; that there is an approach which has worked for one part of western Europe.
  Where else does insecurity come from? In this country it used to emerge from inflation, yet the OECD says that Britain's
  "new monetary framework is working well"
  and has succeeded in
  "enhancing the transparency and credibility of monetary policy".
  Defeatists in our economic debates used to argue that we had to have an external discipline to make British Governments control inflation because they were incapable of doing it themselves. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House argue for European integration measures because we have failed in the past to control inflation and because an external body would, and should, do it for us. That is no longer needed in this country. I hope that the Ken and Eddie show will become part of established procedure. It is transparent and honest and places the issues before the people every time there is a meeting.
  Where else does insecurity come from? We argue a great deal in the House about pensions. In funding its pensions, France is actuarially bankrupt. The same goes for Italy. They are funding their current pensions from the taxes raised from their current work force. The stresses are immense. Others, who are not caught in the hurly-burly of our political arguments, recognise that the Brits have been rather clever again. We have built up huge funds—earned, saved, invested and available—that enable people to draw income out of previous earnings. We are no longer a country that has to fund its pensions from current economic activity and taxation.
  There is a danger, however. Our pensioners can feel very relaxed compared with some of their continental counterparts, for whom the purchasing power of their pensions has to fall. As night follows day, that will happen.
  Mr. Forman: Is there not one group of pensioners, about whom both my hon. Friend and I should still be concerned: the very elderly pensioners who are, say, over 75 years old? They are disproportionately reliant on the state pension, and income support where that is necessary. It is a priority for future public expenditure rounds to try
  472
  to target some help at that group since, as my hon. Friend has just said, the general group of pensioners in Britain is very well off compared with those in other countries.
  Mr. Butcher: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When I think of that £90 billion social security budget and I listen to my colleagues quite rightly talking about targeting and focusing, that particular category of people comes to mind. If any group needed targeting, it is that one. I have great difficulty believing that we cannot adjust budgets of that size to cater for a dwindling number of people who are probably in greater need than most categories of folk. I hope that colleagues will take note of that comment and consider virement in the context of pensions and the social security budget.
  This is the worry: what if we integrated our money into a common currency—or a core currency as I think it was called earlier—and, through majority voting, were unable to prevent the integration of social security systems? As I say it today, it sounds as if it might never happen, but we know from the way in which Europe, the Commission and voting procedures have worked in the past that it is not impossible.
  If the social chapter were the background to that scenario, there would be a danger that prudent British pensioners would subsidise, through common mechanisms, the imprudent southern European pension funds and those of France and, say, Belgium. I say again that even to make the point today sounds slightly hysterical, but points made 10 years ago, which sounded equally hysterical, have turned out to demonstrate proven fears of a reality that came to pass. The issue of pensions relates to insecurity and the creation of jobs helps us to ease that. Honesty in our dealings with inflation will improve the security and peace of mind of our people.
  I shall briefly raise two more points. I welcome the commitment from the Prime Minister downwards to the eventual abolition of capital gains tax. I happen to co-chair the all-party manufacturing group. Like every all-party group, it agrees, usually, on the objectives it wants—in this case the full health of the manufacturing sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises—but it rarely agrees on the policy that would achieve that objective.
  One of the areas of disagreement concerns the treatment of capital gains tax. We all know the problem. Unquoted companies—small and medium-sized companies—employ, typically, between 20 and 200 people. Their only access to finance is the local clearing bank. They have very little access to real risk capital without a great on-cost. The abolition of capital gains tax would put in place a significant piece of the jigsaw to help the sector of the country's economy which needs it most. What defines manufacturing, as opposed to a service sector activity, is that it is capital intensive, so any measure that releases a flood of capital—which I believe the abolition of capital gains tax would—would have a disproportionate benefit.
  That highlights another problem in the House. Historically, the Conservative party is allegedly the party of capital and the Labour party is allegedly the party of labour, although everything is getting rather fudged and, shall we say, muddled at the edges of late, which is not a bad thing in some ways. I wonder whether the House has the wit to agree that the abolition of capital gains tax would cause the biggest job creation programme since 1945.

  473
  Abolition would have a marked impact on solving the problem for small companies, which are the generators of jobs—the big companies are not since they are shedding labour. If Britain, uniquely in Europe, had no capital gains tax, it would give us a Lee Kuan Yew Singapore-style renaissance in key sectors of our economy. I simply ask the House to consider whether we could break out of our straitjacketed way of thinking. If the Leader of the Opposition decided that he was a Thatcherite to that extent and abolished capital gains tax, he could cause us some real problems—but I do not think that he will abolish it.
  There is another contrast between the Conservatives and the Labour party. If we are to be honest, let us consider the information elicited in hostile questioning of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in the mid to late 1980s when he was a Treasury spokesman. He was talking about the tax take which accrued to the nation as a result of the reduction of the top rates of income tax. Month after month there was persistent interrogation of Treasury Ministers; month after month the reply showed that, as the top rates came down to 60 per cent. and then 40 per cent., not only did the cash take from the top 10 per cent. go up, but the proportion of the total tax paid into the coffers by the top 10 per cent. went up. In other words, supply side economics works.
  If those are the facts—and they are—and if the Labour party, behind all the verbiage, is working out a deal to do something for industry and manufacturing, it must know that the lads will not wear it if the top rate of tax remains at its present level. The Labour party will have to jack up the top rate—perhaps to 50 per cent. to start with and then 60 per cent. —and provide a sop for the CBI and other corporate stakeholders, to whom it now wishes to be in thrall, by giving them capital allowances. The odd hints from Dudley, West and elsewhere are that capital allowances will be the concession for the manufacturing sector. It is a double-edged package.
  If the tax take goes down as a result of those two measures—which it will, as was shown in the reply given by the hon. Member for Blackburn—where will the Labour party get the extra money? It will have to go back to the same old milch cow, the middle income groups. That really will spell trouble because such a triple whammy will attack and deflate the wealth creating sector.
  I had hoped to say something about a core currency, but I shall not. Instead, I shall end by saying that we now have a chance to secure an economic miracle. The problem with economic miracles is that, as in the mid-1980s, they can easily be blown away. We over-egged the pudding and then slammed on the brakes too hard by joining the ERM straitjacket. That is history and we have learnt from it. Now, we have a real opportunity. However, economic miracles are not cataclysmic explosions; they are not dynamic happenings over a short period of time. In fact, they are boring, steady, slow and incremental. We need an incremental lead over our competitors in a variety of factors to achieve an economic miracle. We are now going through just that process.
  The Government are being honest and brave. Despite provocation from throughout the House—even from our own colleagues—to go out and do something sexy,
  474
  dynamic and clever, the Government are taking exactly the right approach and providing the basis for a solid economic renaissance. I commend the Budget as a part of the necessary process and the Government for not trying to be too dynamic and clever when the main chance lies in steady incremental improvement.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: Several hon. Members have already expressed concern about the procedures of the House. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made an interesting speech and looked back to the spectre of the 1970s and the formulation of tax legislation. He was concerned that the House was moving towards a nine-to-five four-day week. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) also said that the procedures of the House needed to be examined.
  The procedures that the House has adopted tonight and the way in which political debate is developing in the country show that this place is a disappointing forum for the discussion of United Kingdom economic and financial policies. The age of the soundbite has arrived.
  The last time we held an economic debate was at the beginning of December. The soundbite that the Opposition used before the debate was the lop tax rate, but when it came to the debate they did not want to talk about it. They have taken the same approach today—they floated a soundbite but have come to the House not wanting to talk about it. Last week's soundbite was the stakeholder economy and the Leader of the Opposition went all the way to Singapore to make his comments. He talked about the stakeholder economy in a forum where he would not be questioned. Today, we are holding a major debate on the economy—we are not likely to have another one for six months—but the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot even be bothered to attend and listen to the contributions from his shadow Treasury spokesmen.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman would do well to observe the courtesies of the House, which are sometimes worth maintaining. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) accepted a long-standing invitation to address an audience in Wales this evening. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the business of the House is arranged on a weekly basis. Indeed, one of his hon. Friends has apologised to me as he cannot he here for the whole of the debate because of a prior constituency engagement. The hon. Gentleman may by all means attack us on any perceived political points, but his attack on my hon. Friend has no place in a civilised debate.
  Mr. Legg: I am glad to hear, at this stage of the debate, the hon. Gentleman apologising for the absence of his colleague, the shadow Chancellor. I maintain that when there is a major economic debate the whole of the shadow Treasury Front Bench should be here. Instead, we have the politics of the soundbite—the stakeholder economy being enunciated from Singapore.
  We do not need to go to Singapore to learn about stakeholder capitalism—it is all in Will Hutton's book, "The state we're in". It contains a whole chapter on stakeholder capitalism. I am gravely disappointed that all the members of the Opposition Front-Bench team have

  475
  not come here this afternoon to lay out the measures that the Opposition want in the Budget to deliver what they call stakeholder capitalism.
  I want to mention a few of the things that are involved in stakeholder capitalism. First, the Opposition want regional banks set up across the country. They also want regional Parliaments. The chief executives of the regional banks would be selected and appointed by the regional Parliaments. The Opposition want a federal system within the United Kingdom. They want to create stakeholding trade unions. I should be interested to hear from any Labour Member what he thinks should be done to realise the concept of stakeholder trade unions. Will Hutton says that more powers and rights should be given to trade unions to create stakeholder trade unions. That is what it is all about. Have not we heard that somewhere before? It sounds like a return to the 1970s.
  What are the other prescriptions for stakeholder capitalism? There is the old canard that not enough finance is available in the UK. Stakeholder capitalism means urging the Bank of England to provide more finance so that businesses can borrow aggressively. That sounds like a return to the inflation of the 1970s. Stakeholder capitalism is about corporatism. Other measures include taking power away from individual shareholders.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has patronised Yorkshire bank. I hope that that fine regional bank will read his speech tomorrow. He appears to be saying that businesses should not have access to capital on reasonable terms.
  Mr. Legg: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the concept behind stakeholder capitalism is the state providing extra resources to banks to enable them to invest aggressively. That concept rejects free-market economics. It rejects resources being allocated by the free market. Labour wants to take power away from individual shareholders. It believes that company takeovers are wrong and it wants to create a corporate Britain in which only shareholders who are represented on the board have voting rights.
  Mr. Jenkin: While listening to my hon. Friend, I am looking at a copy of the speech of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The right hon. Gentleman hinted at interference in the natural forces of the market when he said:
  "But it is surely time to assess how we shift the emphasis in corporate ethos from the company being a mere vehicle for the capital market—to be traded, bought and sold as a commodity—towards a vision of the company as a community or partnership in which each employee has a stake and where a company's responsibilities are more clearly delineated."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not explain what he meant by that. Unless I am mistaken, pension funds and employee share-ownership already provide that sense of community in a company. What else can he be talking about?
  Mr. Legg: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition made a vague statement. Hon Members probably saw the right hon. Gentleman on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday trying to convince the nation about stakeholder capitalism. "It is only a soundbite. It means nothing at all," he said. "Forget it. It was just my soundbite for last week." Anyone who aspires to Government must understand that they cannot govern by soundbites.
  476
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was correct to say that behind the statements of the Leader of the Opposition lies a return to the corporatist 1970s, a return of power to the trade unions and a reduction in the power of ordinary shareholders. That is what stakeholder capitalism is all about.
  Mr. Hutton's prescription for that matter is honest. He admits that he would like to see more public spending. Opposition Members would like more public spending on issue after issue, but Opposition Front Benchers fail to admit that that would entail extra taxation. Mr. Hutton is clear that there would need to be extra taxation to finance higher public spending, and he would extend the welfare state because, he believes, the problem of people not wanting to pay higher taxes could be solved by extending universal benefits. The more people have universal benefits, the less resistance there will be to high taxes. That is an honest socialist point of view, and I am sure that we could have a meaningful debate on the subject if Opposition Front Bench Members wanted to engage in such a debate in the Chamber. I would respect them if they honestly put forward a socialist point of view. Instead, all that we get from the Opposition Front Bench is a vacuum.
  There has been much debate about Britain's international performance, and Labour focused much attention during our previous debate on economic affairs on the latest report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which suggested—the Opposition claimed—that Britain had been pushed down the league table. Today, we have heard nothing from the Opposition about international comparisons.
  In the past few days, a new international study has been released which shows that economic prosperity and success are achieved on the basis of economic freedom and that the most succesful countries are those that make sure that economic freedom exists and expands. That international study ranks Britain sixth behind Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Switzerland. International comparisons show that the Government's policies are increasing the prosperity of this country.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Legg: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I wish to continue.
  Mr. MacShane: What is the source of that study?
  Mr. Legg: If the hon. Gentleman wants to read more about the international study, I would refer him to last Friday's Daily Telegraph. He can get all the details there.
  Mr. MacShane: Well, that is alright then.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continue to intervene from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Legg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What Labour stands for covertly and overtly is higher public spending, which will lead to higher taxation in one way or another as it always has done in the past.
  I am particularly pleased to be able to welcome a Finance Bill that brings into effect measures that will cut taxation. We have had to take action for three years to reduce the deficit, but we are now able to introduce a Finance Bill which proposes lower business taxation,

  477
  lower personal taxation, lower excise duties and improved incentives. I particularly welcome the incentives for improved share participation through savings-related share options and approved profit-sharing schemes.
  Many hon Members have commented upon the length of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) hoped that, although it was long, it would not be an obscure Bill. I hope that he and I will serve on the Finance Bill Committee together, and we shall then see whether this is obscure legislation or not.
  Hon. Members may be interested in clause 53. It is said that the British are particularly fond of animals, and it is noteworthy to see that the hard-hearted officials of the Inland Revenue also seem to be fond of animals. Clause 53 deals with the landfill tax, from which there is an exemption where
  "the disposal is of material consisting entirely of the remains of dead domestic pets".
  So even in the Inland Revenue we find concern for pets and for pet-owners. Typically, that concession for the disposal of dead pets is heavily qualified by a proviso in subsection (5), which reads:
  "The test is that during the relevant period—
  hon Members will not be surprised to realise that subsequent subsections define the relevant period—
  "(a) no landfill disposal was made at the site—
  hon Members will be pleased to know that there are subsequent clauses defining site
  "or
  (b) the only landfill disposals made at the site were of material consisting entirely of the remains of dead domestic pets."
  When studying the landfill legislation, one finds that there are a further five pages of interpretations and a schedule of 25 pages dealing with the administration of the landfill tax. The Committee will certainly have some interesting debates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) commented on capital gains tax, and I endorse his comments. We need a thoroughgoing reform of capital gains tax. A system based on a tapering of capital gains tax rates so that only short-term gains were taxed would be beneficial to the economy and raise more revenue. At present, many people and institutions retain shares because there is potentially a high capital gains tax liability if they liquidate those assets. Scope for further tax reform is certainly available to Ministers.
  Several hon. Members have commented on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on the Budget which was published today. The Committee broadly supports the Government's taxation and spending policies and believes that the Government have the right fiscal strategy. The Committee was pleased to report that the Government were exercising more effective overhead control, but expressed concerns about the continuing growth of social security. All of us regret that the PSBR is higher than was forecast this time last year, but that is mainly due—as some of my hon. Friends have said—to lower revenues and a lower rate of growth in the economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's forecast for the coming year shows a revival in growth, an objective which most hon. Members hope will be achieved.
  478
  The Treasury Select Committee has also been critical of the Bank of England's advice on interest rates and the weight which it has given to certain factors in trying to support an interest rate rise. The Committee was concerned by the Governor's assertion that he was right to seek an interest rate rise in May. We have supported the moves of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for lower interest rates and we will continue to do so.
  I conclude by returning to the subject of stakeholder capitalism and to the views of Mr. Will Hutton. One of Mr. Hutton's concerns about Britain is that there is still a north-south divide. He believes that the interest rate rises in the late 1980s were necessary in the south-east of England, but that they damaged the economy in the north of England. That view is worthy of consideration. If one reads on in Mr. Hutton's book, however, one finds that he is a committed supporter of the ERM. He believes in fixed exchange rates and supports the ultimate objective of a single currency. One may think that that is a strange stance for a man who believes that, even in the United Kingdom, an interest rate may be set for the nation which is appropriate for one part of the country but inappropriate for another part. I think that he has failed to make the connection between what is happening in the real economy and how interest rates should be set.
  In the coming year Britain is likely to have a growth rate of around 3 per cent., while Germany—once the miracle economy of Europe—is likely to have a growth rate of only 1 per cent. I shall leave the House with this thought: if there was a single currency and the British economy was growing at 3 per cent. and the Germany economy was growing at 1 per cent., what should the appropriate interest rate be? Should we split the difference so that neither economy had the right interest rate, or should the interest rate be set according to the United Kingdom's or Germany's domestic requirements?
  There is no prospect of a single currency being able to benefit an economy without a truly federal system in which financial resources can easily be transferred. Without this a single currency can only harm people and the component economies within the area concerned.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), and I look forward to doing business, as it were, with him in the Committee which considers the Finance Bill. I congratulate him in particular on the early, in-depth reading of the Finance Bill which has enabled him to discover the particular clause which covers the inhumation of pets. As some of Opposition Members' favourite pets are Tory Members of Parliament, we look forward to examining that part of the Bill in some detail.
  I was touched by the references made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West to Will Hutton, whom I count as a friend and whose book I remember reviewing last year, with some enthusiasm. I must say, however. that when the hon. Gentleman was describing Mr. Hutton's enthusiasm for Europe—not for economic and monetary union, but for the exchange rate mechanism—for a moment I thought that he was describing the short, medium and long-term goals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will lead to private

  479
  agonies for the modern Conservative party as it dances on the Titanic in a deadly waltz between fanatical anti-Europeans and those who still see Britain playing a useful part in Europe.
  This Budget—which is a serious piece of legislation—has been the most uncommented-on legislation to have been brought before the House since I was first elected a Member of Parliament. That may dismay my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, who must of course do doughty battle over the Budget with their opposite numbers. When I return to my constituency, however, and talk to the people of Rotherham—to business people, to people with houses and hopes, to people who look for a good education for their children and for some guarantee of health care, and, in particular, to the older members of the community who have paid national insurance and other contributions for many years, if not decades—I find that none of them have any confidence in either this Budget or in the Government's economic policies. It is easy enough to see why.
  The only aspect of the Budget statement which seemed to excite the commitment or interest of Conservative Members was the removal of tax on Bugattis and Bentleys. As the debate proceeded, we suddenly saw that the spin doctors had come into action, and every Conservative Member told us that this was a holding Budget and not real—steady as she goes until the big tax giveaway next year.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) made a thoughtful and, if I may say so, typical speech as a solid, Birmingham, business-centred, fair to manufacturing, former Minister. I know that because I was the chairman of the local Labour party in Mosely, Birmingham, where he was once a councillor, and where the Chancellor of the Exchequer once lived.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West seemed to feel some relief that for the past two or three years there was a sense of economic guidance in the country that was not based on boom or bust and not based on giveaway Budgets, not there simply there to titillate groups of potential Conservative supporters but had some coherence to it. I invite him to join me in the debate on the November Budget next year, if the Government are still in office in 10 months' time. I think he will find that the prudence, honesty and sense of coherence that he discovered in the Budget is thrown to the winds because, whenever the choice comes between party or national advantage, the Conservative party in Government consistently opts for the former. So I was grateful to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West and I shall read it with extra care if, as certainly I and the country hope that they will not, the Government reach the stage of presenting another Budget later this year.
  I am particularly concerned not only about the regressive nature of the Budget—the taxes levied weigh most heavily on the poorer members of the community—but about its lack of excitement. It does not seek to grapple with the new challenges that a global economy presents. These challenges can be dealt with in many different ways. We see in the United States from the Republicans and from Mr. Newt Gingrich when he is taking time off from padding his own coffers with election expenses, a novel and challenging approach to national finances. I happen not to agree with it, but at least one may argue that it has a certain coherence.
  480
  Let us consider other economies throughout the world. Let us take as an example, as it was cited by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, the country where my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party recently gave a speech—Singapore. It has a novel approach to public finance. A compulsory 25 per cent. is deducted from all employees' salaries and a compulsory 15 per cent. —nearly twice the percentage deducted in the United Kingdom—is deducted from every employer's payroll, to pay for a national health, pension and housing scheme.
  Only my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) sits on the Front Bench as I speak. Were his senior colleagues on the Front Bench to stand at that Dispatch Box and say, "Here is Labour's policy. In addition to income tax, 25 per cent. will be taken off people's income to pay for national health and pensions and 15 per cent. off every employer", the Conservative Benches would be in uproar, with cries of "Socialism! Communism!"
  I can imagine the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West delving into back numbers of The Daily Telegraph to describe such a system, yet such is the way in which things are done in Singapore—not in a socialist state, not a communist state, not in the United States of America, but a massive 25 per cent. deduction from all employees' pay in Singapore. Had the Budget offered that as a proposal, one might have been interested.
  I do not know, with the new configuration of the Government Front Bench team, exactly which of the two wings of the Conservative party all the Ministers come from. Let us say that the guiding spirit was that of the Chancellor, who I am happy to recognise as someone who believes that Britain should be part of Europe, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Let us suppose that the European example had been followed—that of Germany. For all its current faults, I wish that British short-term interest rates were as low as those of Germany. I wish that our country had giant car-producing companies that belonged to British firms. I wish that we had regions of our country, such as the Germans have in the new Bundeslaender, where state of the art factories are being created with many fewer workers than previously, with high technology investment, in a way that we do not dream of in Britain as we proclaim our pride in taking the cast-off screwdriver assembly plants from Taiwan and Korea.
  I acknowledge that there are some temporary difficulties in that immense economic drive forward, but I am prepared to take a bet with any hon. Member that when I leave the House or die, whichever is the sooner, the per capita gross domestic product of Germany will be greater than that of this country. I am ashamed of that fact.
  If the Budget had embraced Mr. Hutton's stakeholder economy ideas, that would have had something to commend itself, but it is a Budget shorn of ideas, with no sense of direction—a Budget that treads water, that marks time.
  Even Samuel Brittan—I have been a devoted reader of Mr. Brittan for many decades but he is not, it is safe to say, regarded as a socialist, social democrat or stakeholding commentator—asks in today's Financial Times whether we might consider hypothecation, at least for the national health service, arguing that the time has come for fresh consideration of the way in which we raise taxes.

  481
  I find that intellectual emptiness, that vacuous hollowness, at the heart of the Budget, a reflection of the emptiness at the heart of the present Government. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), whose contributions to our financial debates we all enjoy, may agree that, at the time when his father was in the Cabinet and the former right hon. Member for Blaby was Chancellor, there was some vim and viz of excitement to fiscal policy in this country.
  Mr. George Stevenson: The poll tax.
  Mr. MacShane: No; that was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. Stevenson: Was it?
  Mr. MacShane: Mr. Lawson, it must be said, fought tooth and nail against the poll tax. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the poll tax for the stupidity that it was, but, with the typical courage of a Conservative Minister, he did what he was told.
  That is the challenge for the nation. To a certain extent, that challenge has been met by Labour Front Bench Members, especially by the proposal, which I found exciting, by my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 10p in the pound, and the concept of the windfall levy on the disgraceful, scandalous and affronting profits that utility companies have made. Those are two modest suggestions, yet in them ideas were at work, but ideas there are none in the Budget.
  Mr. Legg: The hon. Gentleman has praised Labour Front Bench Members' idea of introducing a 10p tax rate. Will he try to persuade them to table an amendment of that sort?
  Mr. MacShane: I do not know whether that will be possible in Committee, but I will gladly take technical advice on it. If the right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman, but I wait in hope—tonight pledges that he will vote with me across the Floor of the Committee on such a proposal, and on other proposals to make the Finance Bill more coherent and sensible, I hope that we can do business together. I look forward to meeting him in the Lobby after this debate.
  The core questions that any Government economic statement and taxation policy must ask for our country are not those asked in stories in The Daily Telegraph, but those that arise from independent international assessments. Why have we fallen from 13th to 18th in the per capita GDP league, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Why is our country's trade at its lowest this century? Why are we now 21st in the international league for investment? Why, for every pound of inward investment into the country, does £2.50 leave Britain?
  Why are we now 35th in the world education league? Why, in one in five of our working-age households, does no one earn a wage? Why are a million fewer people in work now than were in work when the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), became Prime Minister? Why are one in three of our children deemed to be living in poverty compared with one in 10 in 1979?
  482
  We cannot walk 100 yd or, if the anti-Europeans prefer it, 100 m from this place, without stumbling across beggars. That is the real tribute to the economic and fiscal policy of the Government. Why have we had, in spite of that, the biggest tax increases during peacetime in our 20th century history?
  Why is a typical family in Rotherham paying £600 a year more in tax than it did in 1992? Why have more homes been repossessed under the Conservatives? Why are more people suffering from negative equity—waking up each morning in their house knowing that they cannot sell it? Mrs. Thatcher made a fundamental promise—everyone should own their own home, which would give them a stake in the economy, but that stake has turned out to be a burden on them.
  Why is this country more divided than ever before in its history? People repeatedly quote Disraeli's "Sybil" and the two nations that know nothing of each other and have no intercourse with each other. That is what the 16—nearly 17—years of Conservative Government have done to Britain. At the heart of that process has been economic policy; the Budget—the tax system—is the motor, structure or plan that defines a country. It is the social contract between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, and between the old and the young. That social contract has been betrayed, corrupted and destroyed by a Government who care for nothing except their own survival.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: Despite the exaggerations and the curmudgeonly comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), I believe that we have had a civilised and interesting debate on the Finance Bill. One or two of my hon. Friends have mentioned the fact—without making any criticism—that it was a pity that more hon. Members, from all parties, had not been present in the Chamber. They said that, now we have television monitors in our rooms, it is much easier for colleagues to see what is going on, which is certainly true. But it is a pity that a wider audience outside the House should not have been able to hear the interesting contributions that have been made to our debate. People seem to think that two 15-minute slots each week are all that Parliament is about—there is a lot more to our proceedings than that, as the contributions to our debate have proved.
  Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham—of course, we all make party political points as best we can—I believe that we have had a good Budget, which has now become the Finance Bill. The Budget has been much more widely welcomed in the country than either the Opposition or the so-called responsible press would have us believe.
  We are debating the Finance Bill against a background of economic success and strength that no one on either side of the Chamber would have been able to forecast, even as recently as the last general election. If we had told our constituents that, by 1996, mortgage rates would be the lowest for 30 years, and inflation and the basic rate of tax would be the lowest for 50 years, we would not have been believed.
  Despite the gloomy statistics given by the hon. Member for Rotherham, I believe that this country's economy is strong, and that we are entitled to say to my right hon.

  483
  and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, "Well done, you have achieved that. You have been patient and steady, and now you deserve our thanks."
  However, it is a fragile success, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor must be cautious about imposing unnecessary burdens on business because, although the economy is strengthening and business is undoubtedly confident, that confidence is fragile. We should be hesitant about penalising industry and business, particularly small business. The growth rate in the economy is almost certainly less than my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor had hoped for or would wish. That is understandable—all Chancellors want greater success than they have managed to achieve—but I do not resile from my earlier comment that he deserves our praise and thanks. We must be careful that we do not harm business and industry.
  The reason why I preface my speech in this way is that my task in contributing to the debate is to make a straightforward constituency point about landfill tax and its implications for British Sugar, which operates in my constituency. It also operates in another eight major sites throughout the country, so I am presumably making the point on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
  Some 8 million to 9 million tonnes of sugar beet are delivered annually to those nine factories for processing. By definition, the sugar beet attracts fresh, uncontaminated soil. It is estimated that between half a million and 1 million tonnes of soil is attracted to that beet in the course of an annual operation. On-farm improvements have been made over the years, and we now have the lowest proportion of soil ever adhering to the beet, but that residual amount exists, and the Finance Bill creates a problem for British Sugar.
  At present, the topsoil is conditioned and sold for a variety of uses, such as horticulture, recreational amenities and the improvement of agricultural land, but not all the soil can be used in that way. Avenues such as I have described have, of necessity, had to be found, because the topsoil cannot be returned to the farms whence the beet originated. That is due to the need to control rhizomania—the soil-borne root disease which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know well—and the agreed pest control policy. The Ministry of Agriculture and the industry have agreed that the soil can no longer be returned to the beet-growing farms.
  I therefore make a straightforward point. Until the markets that I have mentioned have been fully developed, more than half a million tonnes of soil—approximately—still has to go to British Sugar's nine landfill sites. Obviously, British Sugar is as effective and efficient as it can be, but the tax will increase its costs and hamper its efficiency. I have been told that the costs will be between £500,000 and £1 million annually if the Bill is enacted as drafted.
  I therefore urge, for one or two simple reasons, that British Sugar should be excluded from the proposed tax. The soil is uncontaminated. It is merely fresh soil which has been removed from beet, and it is being returned to soil. It is not waste. If it were returned to the farm of origin, there could be no question of it being labelled as waste, and no question of it being taxed. The present practice is a plant
  484
  hygiene measure for the control of a disease, not an industrial practice that produces waste which requires disposal.
  There must be something wrong with the proposed legislation if it gives rise to a taxable event when soil is placed in a landfill site owned and operated by the processor, and no public facility is used. That cannot have been the intention of the draftsman, and I look forward to hearing in the Minister's reply to the debate, or elsewhere, that it is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. If am correct, I hope that those concerns will be heard, and that a suitable amendment to the Bill will be accepted in Committee.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I am sorry that I was unable to hear many of the speeches in the debate, particularly the opening speeches, because the planes were delayed by fog, but I got here just in time to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). It was a significant speech that told us a great deal about the state of the Conservative party, if not a great deal about the economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman was attempting to address the great internal battle within the Conservative party between the one-nation group and the other group, whatever they call themselves. His whole concern was really to reply to Baroness Thatcher's speech last week, and to score a point in that internal debate. That encapsulates the problem facing the country at the moment. Everything the Government do is driven by internal divisions within the Conservative party, and that is why they cannot address the real problems facing the country.
  It was also interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Finance Bill. He attempted to put a one-nation slant on that and claim that it was a one-nation Finance Bill. It would be easy to demolish that argument.
  One of the main features of the Finance Bill is that it is highly regressive. That is obvious when we consider its effect on different income levels. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has already done that. One of the appendices of the Select Committee report clearly shows how each income decile of the population is affected by the Budget measures in the Finance Bill. How does it affect the unemployed, for example? According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the income of those in the bottom two deciles will be reduced.
  There are no measures in the Finance Bill to help the unemployed. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a vacuous speech, but he presented policies to address unemployment. One of those key policies is mentioned in the Opposition amendment, which proposes a windfall tax to deal with the problem of youth unemployment.
  The Conservative party derides windfall taxes, but Lord Howe, a previous Chancellor who has been involved in the internal debates within the Conservative party, advocated one on the banks in 1981, so there is no reason why the Conservative party should not support a windfall tax. What better purpose for a windfall tax could there be than dealing with unemployment? The Budget contains

  485
  no other measures to help the unemployed. The Government may claim that there will be more investment as a result of the Finance Bill, but it contains no measures to improve investment and deal with unemployment.
  Nor does it help the low-paid. According to the tables produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, those in the first two deciles lose, those in the third decile gain by 5p a week, and those in the fourth decile gain by 35p a week as a result of the Budget. That is after all the punishment suffered by those sections of the population through increases in indirect taxes, such as VAT on fuel and increases in income tax.
  Since 1992, low earners have been punished by many increases in income tax. Let us consider the position of a man on half average earnings. The proportion of his income that is paid in tax has increased by 33 per cent. since 1992, and now, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, he will gain only 35p a week. The widening of the 20p band helps no one earning under £7,000 a year. That is why the suggestion by the Labour party to introduce a 10p band starts to deal with the problem of those on very low pay, as do other measures that we propose, such as a minimum wage. There is nothing for those on low incomes in the Budget.
  The middle income earners whom the Conservative party hopes to win back are not helped much, either. On average, the typical family has lost £800 since the last election. The Finance Bill may enable those families to recover about £130. That is why it was called the "7p up, 1p down" Budget.
  The great mass of those on middle incomes have been punished since the election and throughout the period of Conservative Government. One of the great myths is that the Conservative party reduced the tax burden on those people, but it is clear from the total tax burden and the proportion of income that relates to tax and national insurance contributions that middle income earners are also paying more under the present Government.
  It is important that we should not isolate the basic rate of tax. Of course, that is what the Government try to do. In the advert in the Sunday Times on the last day of last year, which set out all the supposedly wonderful achievements of the Government, the Prime Minister pointed to the basic rate of income tax, but there are many other ways of increasing income tax apart from raising the basic rate.
  Since the general election, the married couple's allowance has been reduced, as has mortgage tax relief. Personal allowances were frozen twice in 1993, and the unfreezing now does not make up for that. The increase in national insurance contributions is the same as an increase in income tax from the point of view of the taxpayer. The great majority of middle income earners gain very little from the Budget. Only those at the top of the income scale gain anything significant. The Bill is highly regressive on income tax. Those higher up the income scale retain a bigger proportion of their earnings.
  The Finance Bill also starts the process of getting rid of inheritance tax, which is still a Government objective. As I asked in the Budget debate, how can the Conservative party seriously say that it is better to spend £285 million a year on raising the inheritance tax
  486
  threshold way beyond the reach of inflation than to spend that money on reducing VAT on home heating, although a little more expenditure would be necessary to get that down to 5 per cent.?
  The Minister has sent someone to check my figure of £285 million. I agree that it is slightly puzzling, because the Budget press release gave lower figures for the cost of inheritance tax next year, but the full year cost of that change is £285 million. I am told that the reason for the discrepancy between the two figures is that the tax is not collected until six months into the year. If there is a technical explanation, no doubt the Minister can give it, but how can that money possibly be justified in such a tight Budget situation?
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) would like to get rid of capital gains tax, which is another Government objective. Those are the Government's priorities and they illustrate more than anything else the cruel and regressive nature of their tax regime.
  Of course, it is not only the regressive nature of the Finance Bill that is significant; the other obvious fact is that the tax reduction is very small compared with the tax rises since the last election. That is because the economy has not improved to an extent that would allow genuine tax reductions. The £3 billion in tax reductions—it is not as much as we were led to believe—was achieved through cutting public expenditure; not one small tax reduction is due to the success of the economy.
  The key problems in the Finance Bill are the high levels of borrowing and the low levels of growth. It is significant that, in the 14 economic points that the Prime Minister put to the nation in The Sunday Times on 31 December, he did not mention growth. How could he, when we have now plummeted to the second lowest level in the European Union? That is slightly better than our position since 1979, over which period we have been the lowest, but that is not something for the Government to boast about.
  The relatively high growth record was a very transitory phenomenon and all predictions for next year are way below the 3 per cent. that the Chancellor has talked about. The Treasury Select Committee has thrown doubt on that figure, Goldman Sachs has said that it will be 1.75 per cent., Professor Minford has said 2 per cent., and others have said that it might be 2.5 per cent. All the growth predictions show a declining trend. The growth target has not been achieved, which is why revenue is in trouble this year and why that trend will continue next year.
  There are other factors at work, to which the Treasury Select Committee refers in its report. I have had time only to flick through the report, in which the Committee addresses other questions. The disappointing growth figures do not account for all the shortfall in revenue, and there are other factors at work which we must investigate closely. For example, income tax revenue is much less than was expected. It is suspected that that is because people many in work are in low-paid and casual jobs. They are not paid high wages, and therefore cannot contribute to income tax. The Government must be aware of that.
  Value added tax receipts are also down. Income tax has decreased by £4 billion-plus, and VAT is down by £5 billion-plus, on the Government's predictions. That is related to the very poor performance of consumer

  487
  spending in the past year—which is not surprising when we consider the job insecurity and the low rates of pay that are endemic in our economy.
  The Prime Minister did not focus on growth and borrowing; instead, he tried to present what he regarded as the successful features of the economy. Next year, we shall see the Government adopt two basic strategies—if Government Members can stop squabbling among themselves long enough to carry them out. The first will be to reduce the basic rate of income tax by some method, irrespective of whether it is in the economic interests of the country. That must be achieved, and the Government hope that people will be deceived by a reduction in the basic rate of income tax and forget the rise in national insurance contributions and other allowance changes that have taken place. That is one strategy.
  Another strategy will involve the presentation of very selective economic facts as exemplified by The Sunday Times advertisement. They will be quarter truths or, in many cases, 1 per cent, truths. For example, the Prime Minister stated that Britain has the lowest unemployment of any major European country. In saying that, he insulted Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, to name but a few. All those countries have lower unemployment than Britain, but obviously the Prime Minister does not regard them as major European countries.
  There is another example of the kind of selective presentation we shall see from the Government. In the advertisement I mentioned, the Prime Minister referred to how Britain exports more cars and televisions than any other European country. I have not checked that; I hope it is true. However, we know about Britain's general trade performance.
  To be charitable to the Prime Minister, the figures showing the plummet in British exports of about £1 billion between October and November were not released at that stage, but we knew that we had the biggest trade deficit in three years, and we knew that our share of world trade was at its lowest ever level. It has declined steadily since the Government came to power.
  Finally, the Prime Minister boasted about inward investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that inward investment is falling, and that it is still less than outward investment. However, the level of inward investment has not been too bad—thank goodness we have had some investment.
  Of course, the Prime Minister failed to mention the dismal failure of investment in the economy as a whole. It is only 1 per cent. this year, in spite of the Government's prediction last year of 6 per cent. That is in line with what has happened for the past 17 years, and we are 22nd out of the 24 OECD countries in terms of investment. That is the underlying problem upon which all the other problems of low growth and poor public finances are based. Unless the Government address the investment problem in the way that the Labour party is prepared to do, there will be no solution to the economic problems confronting this country.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West said that he wants to get rid of capital gains tax. Would it not be far more constructive and creative to use capital gains tax to encourage investment, so that those who have held shares in a company for a long time have a low rate of capital gains tax, while those who sold
  488
  their shares quickly have a high tax rate? Let us use the tax system to encourage investment. An increase in first-year capital allowances is another obvious way of doing that.
  The Finance Bill meets the needs of very few people in this country, and it certainly does not address Britain's underlying economic problems. We shall want to examine many details in Committee. There are a few welcome developments. The change in executive share options obviously resulted from the Labour party's campaign and the proposed new clause that we tabled last year. We hope that the Government will also adopt some of the proposed new clauses and amendments that we have tabled this year.
  The economy is clearly the key battleground in the run-up to the election. We know what to expect, and our main task is to tell the people of this country the truth about the economic situation. However, at the end of the day they will know the truth, because they know what has happened to their standard of living since the last election. They know that their standard of living declined in real terms for the whole second half of last year. Therefore, it will be much easier for Labour Members to put across our economic arguments, because our analysis and our explanations chime with people's experiences.
  I look forward to the debates on the Finance Bill, and will listen with interest to the Minister when he replies.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is, perhaps, hard to remind ourselves that in this debate we are engaged in the most important function of the House of Commons. We are, through the Bill, providing the Government with their supply. We are voting to raise the revenue that the Government will dispense in the coming 12 months, starting on 6 April.
  It is, if I may echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who is not in his place, a rather sad testament of the times that the debate has been rather sparsely attended. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other right hon. and hon. Members, for not being present for all of the debate. I heard the opening speeches but will not pretend that I was watching it on the monitor. When we hear people say, "I wasn't in the Chamber, but I was watching it on the monitor," I fear that there is a half-truth in what they are saying, and that people are not paying enough heed to the exchanges in the Chamber.
  On such an important Bill, I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), whose constituency is not pronounced the same way as Keynes, the economist, and we should remember that.
  Mr. Darling: But Milton as in Friedman.
  Mr. Jenkin: Milton as in Friedman, certainly. That is an accolade that my hon. Friend would accept.
  The importance of the debate should not be underestimated, and it is sad that more hon. Members are not here. Perhaps one reason why so few attend is the sort of speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). He apologised for arriving late for the debate and said that it was because he was stuck in the fog, but his arguments, logic and policies are still stuck in the fog.

  489
  As we enter the pre-election period and begin to hear more, apparently, from Her Majesty's official Opposition—we heard the clarion call for a so-called "stakeholder economy" from Singapore, from the Leader of the Opposition—it has been a great disappointment that we heard nothing at all from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) when he was questioned on specific items of economic policy. When asked whether he thought that the level of Government expenditure was about right, too high or too low, he answered with a slogan. When asked about recent moves in interest rates—whether they were appropriate—he had no view whatever. In fact, he said that the Labour party would have, if I am quoting him correctly, lower long-term interest rates than the Conservative party has achieved in office. That is like saying that we will organise that there will be no droughts.
  The only way in which one can organise lower long-term interest rates is to practise the art and mystery of economic management day in and day out; to know what level of public expenditure will be appropriate; to know what the proportion of national income should be set at to run the economy; and to set out the objectives, because the markets, which govern so much of what we do in the modern world, look to the people who make the decisions, and look for credibility. The debate is about nothing if it is not about maintaining the credibility of the Government's overall stance in the international markets.
  Opposition Front Benchers have exposed the fact that they have no thoughts at all. I congratulate them. They are becoming past masters at the process of opposition, where one must say as little as possible that could ever be hostage to fortune at some time during the election campaign. They know that what they are promising by gesture day in and day out are substantial increases in public expenditure, but any hint of figures is excised from the utterances of Opposition Front Benchers, so that it is harder for us to pin anything on them, as we have in the past. But they are not likely to escape when we come to the crunch.
  Mr. Bayley: It is a question of credibility. The proportion of our GDP that was taken in tax last year by the Conservative Government was higher than that taken by the previous Labour Government. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the proportion of GDP that is taken by the Conservatives in tax is too high, too low or about right?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is an easy question. It is too high.
  Mr. Bayley: Why did the Conservatives raise it, then?
  Mr. Jenkin: Now we have another policy from the Opposition—when the country goes into recession, rather than allowing borrowing and increased taxation to continue to support the level of public services, the Opposition would cut. They have a good record of cutting public expenditure. They cut the health service in the 1970s when they lost control of the economy, and they cut the old age pension by changing the uprating system. That is the kind of mess that we can expect the Labour party to get us into again. When we study what the party has actually said, we find that it has not changed.
  Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is most kind.
  490
  The hon. Gentleman argues that the proportion of gross domestic product taken in tax is higher under the Conservatives than it was under the last Labour Government because we have just gone through a recession, but the proportion has been higher under the Conservatives for 15 of the 16 years during which they have been in office. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that the economy was in recession under the Conservatives for all those years.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is leading himself up a cul de sac. The Conservatives are looking at other economies—such as that of Singapore—whose public expenditure as a proportion of the national income is substantially lower than ours, while their growth rate is substantially higher. If we look around the world for examples of economies that are run better than ours, we must take account not only of the slogans but of the real facts. If we want to engender a higher growth rate in the years ahead so that our economy ceases to decline in relation to others throughout the world, we must emulate the faster growing economies in as many ways as we can.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) wanted to raise extra taxation, supposedly to help the unemployed. There is no evidence that extra spending and taxation either make a Government popular or help the unemployed in the long term. The hon. Gentleman denigrated the Government's objectives to remove inheritance and capital gains tax. Let me ask him a question. If it could be demonstrated that a Government could create a framework in which more jobs were created, more investment attracted and more output and growth generated through the abolition of those taxes, would such action be wrong? Or is the Labour party—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—so trapped in the ideology of equality that it would continue to apply policies that apply equality come what may, however damaging such taxes may be to the overall growth rate of the economy?
  How much capital gains tax does Singapore levy? I asked that question on a recent visit. Singapore starts to apply capital gains tax when individual gains reach several million Singapore dollars, at a rate of 3 per cent. Next time the Leader of the Opposition visits Singapore, perhaps he should examine its taxation system. That system is something to emulate—as well as the enormous corporate control that exists there, to which I shall refer later. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in a minute. It was more interesting than he might have imagined.
  The real test of the Government, and of the conduct of the Opposition, is fitness to govern. The absence of clear answers from the hon. Member for Oxford, East—whom I am pleased to see in his place—demonstrates that the Labour party is simply not fit to govern. The real message from the Second Reading of the Bill, which I can send to my constituents as we enter the pre-election phase, is that we have set taxation on a downward trend again. That is what voters want. It is not simply an electoral bribe; it is necessary to improve incentives and the operation of the economy.
  It is not possible for increased Government expenditure and increased taxation to accelerate the wealth-creating process. Examples from all around the world prove that

  491
  the less the Government suck out of the wealth-creating economy and put into non-wealth-creating activities, the more that can be left to fructify in the pockets of the people—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) is not familiar with the sayings of Winston Churchill. As I was saying, the more that can be left to fructify in the pockets of the people, the more active and dynamic the economy will be.
  Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the conduct of the Government's economic policy over the past 17 years—I accept the mild admonition of the hon. Member for York—is our failure more effectively to reduce the share of national income taken up by Government spending. The reason why we increased it—[Interruption.] I am drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the most depressing figure in this year's Red Book.
  If we are to create a dynamic economy, there is one big problem that we must tackle. The biggest increase in our spending programme, despite all that we are attempting to do to reform it, is in the social security budget, as shown on page 141 of the Red Book. The Red Book shows £1.2 billion added to the plans for next year as compared to the plans drawn up for this year; another £1 billion is planned for the following year and another £550 million for the year after that.
  Do we need more proof of the fact that the Labour party is not fit to govern? Goodness knows what the figures would show had we not tackled the growth in social security spending. We have managed to flatten the upward trend in social security spending. Social security spending is now growing at a rate below that of economic growth whereas it was growing substantially faster.
  The Labour party, however, has opposed every measure that Ministers have put to the House to bring social security spending under control. It is at it now. It still thinks that bogus asylum seekers—people who have been in this country on different pretexts for considerable periods and who are seeking to avoid deportation by making bogus asylum claims—should have a prior claim on the resources of the welfare state, before the taxpayers. The Labour party is demonstrating its irresponsibility and unfitness to govern.
  We need to achieve a steadily falling rate of spending and a steadily falling rate of taxation as a proportion of national income, and we also need greater incentives to encourage people to save. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who talked about restructuring savings incentives in the tax system. I believe that incentives for saving are too dispersed. We encourage people to save in too many different types of pension, in personal equity plans and TESSAs, for varying terms. That means that too much of taxpayers' money—ordinary people's money—is sucked into savings mechanisms that are too impersonal. Corporate and collective pension schemes do not give people the same sense of ownership as personal pension schemes. The national insurance system is, of course, not a savings scheme at all; it is simply a way of buying a Government promise on a wing and a prayer, a promise that might be delivered some time in the future.
  A stakeholder economy is not a slogan to be lifted from the far east. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said, the stakeholding economy described by the Opposition is more of a stateholding
  492
  economy which will result in the state promoting its own vested interests instead of giving individuals and families a genuine stake in society. What we really want is the property-owning, share-owning and capital-owning democracy that the Conservatives have been promoting for some time.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, I have been delving in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, and I am reminded of an article written by the late Lord Joseph, which was published only on Friday although it was written shortly before he died in 1994. When I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about a stakeholding economy, I thought that he might mean giving everyone more choices and more incentives to save, because we need to encourage people to do that at the same time as we reduce the burden of taxation. Lord Joseph made an important point in his article:
  "Welfare is now by far our biggest industry. It is mostly of benefit to the middle classes. It is they who staff it, and enjoy a large proportion of its avalanche of salaries and pensions. Mitigating poverty is not what it achieves. It makes serfs of too many of its recipients."
  If we are to introduce proper savings in place of the bogus savings scheme called national insurance that we now have, they must be a substitute. We do not want additional compulsory pensions loaded on top of all the social security costs, as is proposed by the Labour party.
  I also commend this comment of Lord Joseph's to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench:
  "My own favourite strategy to give every home a stake in the economy"—
  this was written in 1994, not in the aftermath of the publicity foray by the Leader of the Opposition—
  "is to allow friendly societies to recover much of the role they have relinquished over this century."
  I also commend a report, published by the Adam Smith Institute in December, called "The Fortune Account". It proposes to give all citizens a personal savings account to fund their pensions and long-term care and perhaps, as the scheme develops, meet other needs. This proposal is inspired by Singapore and Chile and would create the savings environment that has encouraged the tiger economies to grow as much as they have.
  The objective of the Finance Bill is to create the right climate for continued investment, continued growth and continued economic success. Our objective must be gradually to change the behaviour of the British economy so that it behaves more like the tiger economies, and to increase the growth rate. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) too far. Although he missed the debate, he said how terrible it was. He did an injustice to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Relatively few spoke, but their speeches were quite interesting. This has been the most interesting economic debate we have had for some time, perhaps because hon. Members have had to talk about wider matters than the Finance Bill, which can be dry stuff.
  At least the hon. Member for Colchester, North was better than the nationalists, of whom there was neither sight nor sound during the entire debate. That is surprising, because it might have been thought that the conduct of economic policy would be of interest to them.

  493
  The Chief Secretary has made something of a tradition of opening all economic debates with some knockabout stuff. He now seems to be introducing a tradition of making unfounded allegations against my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), from which he then departs under cross-examination.
  Not surprisingly, the Chief Secretary attacked high taxation, high borrowing and high spending, as well he might. The Government have imposed high taxation because of economic failure. They have imposed 21 tax increases—the equivalent of 7p in the pound in income tax—and record levels of borrowing because of economic failure. The Treasury Committee report, published today, drew attention to the fact that the Government's targets for the public sector borrowing requirement are slipping yet again.
  The Government are also a Government of high spending. The hon. Member for Colchester, North was critical of that. The share of spending has not changed very much in the past 16 years. When Conservative Members ask us what is the right spending figure, they might reflect on that fact.
  Of course the amount of money that a Government spend is important, and public spending must be kept under tight control, but equally important is what the money is spent on. As many hon. Members have said, Singapore and the far east appear to be the places to be for hon. Members on both sides of the House. What is interesting about the Asian economies is their high level of intensive investment and specific investment in education as opposed to high levels of spending caused by the dead weight of unemployment, which is so damaging socially and economically.
  The Chief Secretary lauded the Government's success, but he might have referred more to the Treasury Committee's report. I have already mentioned that that Select Committee, which is Tory controlled after all, was critical about the fact that the Government's target on PSBR appears to slip each and every year. We are now told that the PSBR is not forecast to go into surplus until 2000. I suspect that, next year, the figure will be revised again.
  Many of us remember Lord Lawson's speech when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1988. He told us that the economy was in excellent shape and that we were on the verge of going into a new economic era, in which the country would enjoy unparalleled success. Today, all those years later, after the deepest recession since the second world war, we are still being told that the Government's conduct of economic policy is such that we are on the verge of the breakthrough that has eluded the country for many, many years.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said, doubts have been expressed about the growth rate that the Chancellor has claimed; he has set an ambitious growth rate that many commentators do not agree with him about.
  No doubt the Chief Secretary had a hand in drafting the advertisement which appeared in The Mail on Sunday and, perhaps, other newspapers on the last day of last year which was signed by the Prime Minister himself. It asked:
  "Which country…has the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years"?
  494
  The right hon. Gentleman might have added which country has had some of the highest mortgage rates for many of the 16 years in which the Conservatives have held office. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked what our constituents would have thought if we had told them that they would be paying low mortgage rates just now, but he might also ask himself what his constituents would have said had he told them in 1992 that, rather than tax cuts year on year, tax rises would be imposed the like of which have never been seen in peacetime Britain.
  The advertisement also posed the question:
  "Which country…has the lowest unemployment of any major European country"?
  That ignores the fact that one in five non-pensioner households now has someone who is not working. That is something that we should all reflect on, given the damage it is doing to our country's fabric economically and socially.
  The advertisement also boasted about the country having the longest period of low inflation, but we have also had high inflation at times during the past 16 years. It said that the Government had invested more in pensions. It is funny that it did not mention the mis-selling of pensions that was exposed two years ago. Many people were led to believe that the very act of going private and opting out would be enriching. We know that many people lost money as a result. The Government must bear some responsibility for that because they created the climate in which that mis-selling was made possible.
  The Chief Secretary attacked us, as he is quite entitled to do, and I am happy to deal with those attacks. He might like to reflect on the fact that, in the late 1970s, Lord Howe, who was then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, said only two things: that the then Government taxed too much and borrowed too much. The Chief Secretary might like reflect on the fact that, a generation later, the present Conservative Government are taxing too much and borrowing too much, because, after 16 years of economic failure, we are in the same position as we were in the late 1970s. The country is subject to high levels of taxation, and the Government have piled on taxes year on year since the election in 1992. They are spending broadly the same amount as was spent in 1979. When Conservative Members ask us for the right spending figures, they should look at their own record because that is what the voters will do at the next election.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman seeks to direct some ridicule at my noble Friend Lord Howe for the brevity of his comment about the then Labour Government, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that that statement had a clarity and a lack of ambiguity that are worlds away from the Opposition Front-Bench team, which cannot and will not say anything?
  Mr. Darling: I am bound to admit that the themes are short. What I am saying is that, after 16 years, if Lord Howe were sitting on this side of the Chamber, he might just as well be saying the same things. People will judge the Government on their record and not on what they said then or what they are saying now.
  There have been a number of common themes. One was on the need to simplify tax legislation. Again, I think that that will be an annual event. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made that point. This,

  495
  I suppose, is the first Finance Bill that is part of the private finance initiative. There are some privatised clauses in it, although I have not been able to spot all of them yet. I look forward to the annual report that we shall receive on how to simplify the tax system, which is the result of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) last year.
  The second common theme, which arose time and again and struck Labour Members, was the Conservative party's internal divisions, which are now spilling out on to the Floor of the House. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there were no internal divisions and that the Tory party was united, but, in the first speech from the Back Benches, his former Cabinet colleague, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (M. Hunt), said unashamedly that he was a one-nation Conservative. He nailed his colours to the mast, as did the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
  The news clearly got out because, by the end of the debate, the right-wing had fought back, as we heard from the hon. Member for Colchester, North. The internal divisions were there for all to see.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not just now.
  The right hon. Member for Wirral, West has a difficulty. He quoted Disraeli's "Sybil" and believes that he is a one-nation Conservative—and I think that we are all aware of his record—but he has now left Government. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding—and I hope that I do not offend him—will probably not be included in the Government, at least in this generation, and the right hon. Member for Worthing is, I think, leaving the House. The new, dominant generation of the Conservative party is unashamedly Thatcherite. It is not a one-nation party.
  Conservative Members must square what they say about one-nation Conservatism with the fact nearly every one of them voted for the poll tax, for example. If ever there was an example of a divisive policy that was at odds with the tradition of one-nation policy, that is it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who made, as ever, a thoughtful speech said that one-nation politics should be the politics of all parties that have an interest in governing this country because it is obvious to anyone who cares to see that one cannot win an election or govern the country without occupying the centre ground. That is one of the Conservative party's problems because it knows that it has moved to the right. It has had defections and it has difficulties and divisions that we all saw tonight. Nothing that Conservative Members say will get away from that. As I said, within even an hour or two, the right-wing were fighting back. Clearly, news travels fast in this place.
  The third strand to this debate is the attack on our policy and, in particular, on the concept of stakeholding. Again, there were divisions in the Conservative party. Some Conservative Members said that they did not know what stakeholding was, but, just in case there was any doubt about it, they attacked it. Following the tendency and the example set by the Deputy Prime Minister in his almost daily broadcast to the nation and the Conservative party chairman in his ever more ridiculous claims about our party, others say that they do not know what the policy is, so they fantasise about what it might be and try to reinvent
  496
  all the straw men that they have enjoyed shooting down for all these years. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) followed that line, I think inadvertently, because normally his speeches are intelligent and have some basis in fact—but not tonight.
  Stakeholding—the concept of individuals having a stake in their country—is surely a matter of common sense. The object is to establish a Government who will enable every individual to have a stake in their country, to succeed and to better themselves and their families. It is no wonder that Conservative Members do not understand what stakeholding is all about: over the past 16 years, their policies have been based on division, prejudice and scapegoating. The whole concept of people having a stake in their country so that they feel motivated and have an incentive to work together for a common purpose is something with which Conservative Members cannot come to terms.
  We make it clear in our amendment that investment is the key to this country's future. We shall not get the investment that we need unless we can promote quality and unless we can compete on excellence. We are already doing that in many places, but we need to do it far more. Conservative and Opposition Members have made the point that this country has to deal with a damaging legacy—the damage done to our economic capacity, especially in the 1980s. Unless we expand and enhance the quality of our economic capacity, we shall not be able to compete in the global economy.
  In the context of the Bill, the whole concept of stakeholding must be to recognise that there is a mutual purpose for which we all work together as individuals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mutual?"] Hon. Members howl the word mutual as though there was something wrong with it. Some Conservative Members say that they are one-nation Conservatives. Surely the essence of one-nation Conservatism or the politics of one nation must be that we are concerned about what happens to our neighbour in economic and social terms. If Conservative Members want to make that a difference between us and them at the next election, let them do so. This country's mood is to end the divisions and the prejudice which have been the hallmark of so many Conservative Members in the past few years. I am surprised that some Ministers here this evening are prepared to throw their hat into that ring.
  One-nation politics is not an expression of sentiment or of justifiable concern for the less well-off. It is active politics. It means the Government putting into practice the policies that enable individuals to achieve their potential, to get into work, to achieve education and to get the reskilling they need so that they can make their own contribution and improve their own economic circumstances.
  Mr. Yeo: If the stakeholder economy is so much a matter of common sense, can the hon. Gentleman now tell us whether the policies that are needed to introduce the stakeholder economy involve a higher level of public expenditure or a lower level? Do they involve an inflation target higher or lower than the present one? Do they involve higher interest rates or lower ones? If it is a matter of common sense, let us have the answers that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) steadfastly refused to give when he opened the debate.
  Mr. Darling: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening for the past 10 minutes. From looking

  497
  at the Government's record and their spending patterns, I have been pointing out they have got it wrong. We have made it clear time and again that the reason why public spending is so high here is economic failure. That is why we suggested, during our debates on the previous Budget, measures to get people off unemployment and back into work. That would enable them to make a contribution and would cut public spending. If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) does not understand that, it is no wonder that he is in his present position.
  I will illustrate again the concept of stakeholding by reference to the Bill. We see the role of Government as doing those things that individuals by themselves cannot do. The national health service and the transport infrastructure are classic examples. It is not surprising that the Conservatives do not understand that. Surely a high-quality education service must be one of the prerequisites of this country competing successfully.
  I give another example, by reference to employee shareholding. Here we have a classic example of the difference between Labour and Conservative Members. The Government have created a climate in which a few who sit on the boards of the privatised utilities have made substantial gains through share options, not because of anything that they have done, but simply because of the way in which the companies were privatised. We believe that share options and incentives should be available to all the people in an enterprise, whether they are in the board room or on the shop floor. We believe that reward should follow success and that it should not be the other way round.
  Everybody needs incentives and everybody needs a stake in the company, no matter where he or she is in it. The good companies already recognise that and many companies are putting into place the practices that we would like to see spread throughout British industry. Shareholding should also encourage people to save, a point to which I want to return.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman has been shouting for some time, I will give way for one final time. I then want to come to my conclusion.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "should" a lot in his recent sentences. He says that companies should do this and should do that. Is he proposing a new range of corporate compulsions or is it just music for Opposition ears?
  Mr. Darling: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Nothing would please him more than if he were able to claim with any justification a whole battery of new rules and regulations. I suggest—I believe the service is available from the House of Commons Library—that he gets the transcript of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's interview with David Frost yesterday in which he made the position absolutely clear. [Interruption.] Hon. Members clearly did not see that interview and are relying solely on handouts from Conservative central office, which is a very unreliable source of information.
  We are talking about a change of culture. Many successful companies, and indeed many successful investors in industry are changing their culture. We are
  498
  talking about ownership and not speculation of the sort that the Government fostered throughout much of the 1980s, which is the hallmark of Conservative philosophy.
  On the questions of stakeholding and employment, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred, from the one-nation Conservatives to Opposition Members, surely the Government should have done something in the Budget and the Finance Bill to get those who have been out of work for more than a year back into employment. That problem is socially debilitating as well as economically inefficient. We have a second generation of people who are out of work, which is causing huge strains in society. Any Government ought to be concerned with that. Given everything that the right hon. Member for Wirral, West said, he might reflect that that is what the Government, who he has supported, have done for the past 16 years.
  Surely creating and sustaining a high level of employment must be a major objective of Government policy. Again, that is a difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Conservative Members seem to be quite happy to pursue the policy of every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) came up with the interesting concept of a virtual company—which I understood him to condemn—whereby there is a core company and everything else is contracted out and people are employed on short-term contracts. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to suggest that there was a future in this country having virtual government, or in a virtual country in which a core was required but what was on the periphery was not but could be called into use as and when it was required. I do not think that rather simplistic analysis can be translated into a philosophy of government. If I misunderstood him, I shall by all means give way.
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has comprehensively misunderstood me. I was saying that, under a virtual economy, practised on a large scale, like virtual companies, the economy would create more jobs, and the insecurity with which we are all concerned would be alleviated by the rate of job creation. I likened that to an economy in which jobs are safeguarded at any cost, but which removes 20, 30 and 35 per cent. of the population from the job market. I was arguing in exactly the opposite way. The so-called virtual economy and virtual company gives more security through more job creation.
  Mr. Darling: I shall study the hon. Gentleman's remarks tomorrow if I have time, and if we have another debate I shall no doubt refer to them.
  I want to refer to two or three other points. I shall mention briefly the private finance initiative because it was mentioned be a number of Members. As we have said often enough, we support the general principle. Indeed, I sometimes think that one of the problems with the PFI is that it appears to have run into the ground because it has all-party support. Perhaps if we had opposed it, someone might have put a little more effort into getting it off the ground.
  The fundamental problem with the PFI is that the Government will not prioritise the projects. There are 1,400 projects marked A or B, but other than that there is no particular priority. That means that the private sector

  499
  spends a considerable period of time and therefore a great deal of money trying to work out the Government's priorities. For that reason, very few projects have got off the ground. There are problems. One is in comparing the true cost of the PFI against projects funded by a conventional means. We, however, support the principle and we shall just have to hope that, in the next year, the Government give the initiative a much-needed kick along the way.
  Before I leave the subject, may I submit a request to the Financial Secretary on the channel tunnel? Many of us will have read the increasingly strident tones of Sir Alastair Morton, which appear to be designed to secure a Government handout to bail out the channel tunnel. If the Government change their policy, I hope that they will make a full statement and that they will not attempt to do anything in a back door, underhand way, especially when it comes to announcing what is to be done about the channel tunnel link. We know the Government and we shall be watching them carefully.
  Other points raised included self-assessment. We support the principle behind self-assessment, but we remind Conservative Members that they told us that there was nothing to worry about with the poll tax and its administration. Perhaps the current Defence Secretary will now reflect on his comment that the poll tax would be the most popular measure ever. Before Conservative Members say too much about self-assessment, they should realise that there is a real risk that some people will end up paying more tax than they should, while others will manage to evade paying it. That would be undesirable.
  Much has been said today about savings and we will return to the subject in Committee. Suffice it to say that we welcome what the Government have done so far. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House know that much more must be done to encourage people to save in the long term, not just the short term.
  The Financial Secretary will no doubt refer to the advertisements placed in newspapers by the Prime Minister at the beginning of this year. He may wish to reflect on questions that have been asked often enough, but bear repetition because we have had no answers. Why has Britain fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league? Why is Britain's share of world trade now the lowest this century? We know that our questions are hitting home because the Government have no answers. Why are one in three children in Britain in poverty, compared with only one in 10 in 1979? Why has Britain, under the Tories, had the biggest tax rise in peacetime history—despite the fact that they promised the opposite in 1992? Why, after 16 years of Conservative government and after all the protests this evening about one-nation Conservatism, is our country so divided?
  Those are the questions that the Government must answer. Because we know that the Government cannot answer them, we feel fully justified in voting against the Bill's Second Reading tonight.
  9.41 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) must have taken his speech from the St. Peter's school of political debate, because thrice he will deny his own party before the cock crows. He wants to deny that his party opposed our pioneering sales
  500
  of council houses, thereby giving people a real stake in home ownership. He wants to deny that his party opposed giving people a big stake in privatisation. His comments on education were beyond belief because the Budget makes an additional £775 million available to schools.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend join me in hoping that county councils such as Lancashire pass on that additional money to schools, as they should?
  Mr. Jack: Conservative Members of Parliament in Lancashire flushed out the Labour party's attempt to take money away from Lancashire schools. The council has now had to recant and make that money available. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point.
  Conservative Members made some very good speeches tonight and I shall deal with them first. I welcome the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). He had to wait for some time to be called, but what he had to say was important. In particular, he pointed out that we have started on a downward trend in taxation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has not been prepared to play fast and loose with Britain's economy; instead, he waited until we gained control over public spending to begin to reduce taxes. [Laughter.] Those were difficult policies, even if they attract derision from the Opposition. It shows that the Conservative party can take difficult decisions while effectively suffering those who criticise us for doing so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has had a long-standing interest in Finance Bill debates. He mentioned publishing draft clauses and I welcome his support for that. A great deal of consultation has been undertaken to try to improve the quality of our legislation and I welcome his words on that. I shall draw his comments about a European currency to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), another hon Member who has taken much interest in these matters, made some important points. I was pleased to hear his comments on self-assessment, on which I shall have more to say later. I am grateful for his praise for the way in which the Inland Revenue is working, using consultation, an advisory committee formed from all sections of business and individual representations on self-assessment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield commented on the improvements achieved by the reforms, and he will know that the decision to change the way in which the Inland Revenue operates was not taken lightly. The subject was debated twice in the House and was welcomed in principle by hon. Members. It is now being tested on some 5,000 taxpayers in Leicester, and the experiment is proving to be a success.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said that the measures incorporated in the Budget, and hence in the Bill, have been widely welcomed. I was reminded that Sir Ronald Hampel, the chairman of ICI, commented:
  "The Budget should enable the economy to grow at a healthy rate over the next two years."
  That comment was made by a leading multinational and international business man and should be respected.

  501
  I noted my hon. Friend's comments on British Sugar and the problems that it faces with soil disposal and rhizomania. I understand the seriousness of the issue, and I undertake to draw his comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I extend that undertaking to hon. Members who asked about the Manchester ship canal.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a minute?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) put his finger on an important omission in Opposition Members' speeches. I aim to show that they are not only incapable of answering simple questions about their economic policies but are remarkably silent on some of the ideas that they claim are unique, election-winning and even are their own. My hon. Friend cited the so-called 10p tax soundbite as one such claim. Where is it? There is no mention of it in the Opposition amendment.
  If they had any pride in their policies, the Opposition would be prepared to test them out in the House, but clearly they have none. We took the trouble to cost their lop tax proposal, and we discovered that it would cost £8 billion. When I raised that matter on "Any Questions", the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suddenly withdrew and suggested that the 10p band might not cover the same range as our 20p band. Realising that he was broadcasting to the nation, the hon. Gentleman immediately shut up and that was the last we heard of the 10p band. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for flushing the Opposition out on that point.
  Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: I do not think I will, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central took away some of my time. If I have time, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West for his endorsement of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's broad welcome for the Budget and, in due course, the Treasury will officially reply to the points that he made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) made a very perceptive speech. Opposition Members chided the Government about the number of people in employment. If they had listened to my hon. Friend's sage remarks, they would understand that structural change has inevitably influenced the number of jobs that can be created in the economy. My hon. Friend remarked that our supply side changes are helping to create an opportunity to respond to technical change and added that more jobs are being created than ever before, hence the fact that 730,000 fewer people are on the unemployment register than when the recession was at its peak. My hon. Friend made some telling and important points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) focused, as always, on savings and shares, and I am grateful for his support for the measures in the Bill that deal with those subjects. He also made a telling contribution in identifying one of the Bill's
  502
  most important proposals—the three further steps towards achieving a standard tax rate of 20p. That policy is evident for all to see. Its analysis is clear, unlike Opposition Members' approach to tax.
  The three steps are a penny off the basic rate to 24p—which is a penny nearer 20p—a widening by £700 of the 20p band and, most importantly, the taxation of savings at a rate of 20p. There are real gains that I hope all hon. Members will support in the coming Finance Bill debates.
  I also welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington on the subject of further share ownership. If one listened to the Opposition, one would think that they had invented the concept of wider share ownership. Our enhancements of schemes such as save-as-you-earn and profit-sharing have already enabled 2 million people to have a real stake in the companies they work for. I expect that those programmes will expand and I expect the Opposition to show their support for them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington also promoted his own agenda on the subject of what he called a PIP—a personal investment plan. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested to hear what he has to say about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) let his views on the Budget be known in no uncertain terms. I was grateful for his support, particularly his underscoring of the fact that the Budget and the Finance Bill address the question of sound money in this country. He properly drew our attention to the reduction in national insurance charges—another important measure in the Budget which will put some £500 million back into the pockets of industry and help it in its quest to create jobs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding rightly drew the attention of the House to my right hon. and learned Friend's improvement in plans to reduce public spending, which now amount to some £44 billion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) chose to concentrate his remarks on the subject of capital gains tax, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and for Milton Keynes, South-West. I hope that they will accept that the Government have a clear, long-term commitment to the ultimate abolition of capital gains tax.
  I hope that the hon. Member for South Suffolk will remember that there are many ways in which companies and individuals can mitigate the effects of that tax. Unincorporated businesses can set trading losses against capital tax, and rollover relief is available. In this Budget we have expanded the retirement relief in relation to the age limit of 50, which means that the first £250,000 of gains are exempt. The role of venture capital trusts should not be underestimated in that respect.
  My hon. Friend also drew our attention to some of the exchanges which have occurred on the subject of a stakeholder economy. I was taken by the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on the stakeholder economy. He lifted the veil on what the stakeholder economy meant for the Labour party when he said in The Times of 15 January that the Opposition leader's vision meant a fresh lease of life for union barons.

  503
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), whom I am pleased to see has returned to his place, discussed the private finance initiative, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I assure them that we take some of criticisms that have been made about the PFI extremely seriously. At the beginning of the year, we published "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit" precisely to send a clear signal that we intend to tackle some of those issues.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was perhaps confused in some of his remarks. Private finance is a new way of procuring services to give overall better value for money. We are dedicated to seeing that through and to achieving our objectives. He mentioned the problem of people who may have orders for 2,300 litres of oil for domestic heating purposes and so are subject to the higher rate of VAT. If it can be amply demonstrated that the oil is for domestic use, I assure him that it is possible to have the VAT charged at the lower rate. If I may, I shall write to him on that point more fully.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) chastised us on the subject of investment, as did a number of Opposition Members. It is remarkable that they do not wish to know what is happening in the economy. It is forecast that business investment will grow by 9 per cent. in 1996 and by a further 6.75 per cent. in 1997 and beyond. It is forecast that manufacturing investment will grow by 10 per cent. in 1995 and 1996. Since 1979, investment in our economy has grown faster than in any major European Union country and six times faster than it grew under the previous Government. That is the investment reality.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) tried to entertain us because he and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central have managed to get their name in The Guardian today, arguing that we were deficient regarding our tax burden. Do not Opposition Members realise that when in government, they got away with an artificially low tax take as a percentage of GDP only because their borrowing was so great? Their borrowing averaged 7 per cent. of GDP; under the present Government, borrowing has been 3 per cent. If the Labour Government had sustained their position, there would have been an increase of about 10p in the standard rate of tax. Let us have a fair comparison of taxes, not an improper one.
  If the Labour Government's policies had remained in place, under their tax regime another 1 million people would now pay tax. By contrast, the Budget has taken about 220,000 people out of tax. Let us talk the facts about tax.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: While the Minister is speaking about tax, will he tell the House why the share of national income going in taxation will be greater next year than it was last year, and why, under the present Government, tax is planned to increase every year, as a share of national income, until the end of the century? Is not that the price of the Government's social and economic failure?
  Mr. Jack: How can the hon. Gentleman have the cant and hypocrisy to ask me that question after the analysis that I have given him? I drew attention to the fact that the Labour figures were distorted because Labour Governments were leaving their IOUs for succeeding generations. Another 10p on standard rate and another million people paying tax would have been the product of your borrowing requirements. Those are the facts.
  504
  I tried hard to discover the way in which the Labour party dreamed up its policies, and I found the answer in Robert Peston's column in the Financial Times on 11 January 1996. He said that Labour's approach is the virtual reality approach to economy. They put on the headset, look into the goggles and see the world that they want to see, forgetting the fact that they must return to the reality of the economy as it is.
  With that virtual reality approach, I ask the Opposition some questions. They obviously are incapable of taking an A-level in economics, but let us pitch the questions at the level of a GCSE in economics. My right hon. and hon. Friends have asked important questions earlier, so let us ask them again.
  Do you have a target for inflation? No; you do not. Do you have a target for interest rates? No; you do not. Will you ensure that public spending is reduced to zero by the end of the decade, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said in the Red Book? I expect that you do not have an answer to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "You?"] Do you even agree with our concept of a 20p tax band? I will give way if you can answer any of those questions. I would give way if you would answer any of these questions.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
  Mr. Jack: Not to you. I will certainly give way—
  Hon. Members: You?
  Madam Speaker: I think the Minister has been getting rather carried away in the last few minutes. Perhaps he will refer to the Speaker, as he is referring to "you". He should be speaking through the Chair.
  Mr. Jack: I am sorry if my enthusiasm to tease from the Opposition their true economic policies led me to show any discourtesy to the Chair. It certainly was not my objective.
  If it is impossible for the Opposition to answer those simple questions, why was it possible yesterday, on "Breakfast with Frost", for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), in a moment, to tell the interviewer that he did not have a plan for a 50p tax rate? If he could be certain in that moment, why are Opposition Members so uncertain about every other aspect of their economic policies?
  Much has been said about league tables today. The policies contained in the Finance Bill will lead us to the top of the economic achievement league in Europe. The Government's policies will help to kindle further growth in the economy and I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 309

  Division No. 21]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Ashton, Joe

  Anger, Nick

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  505

  Bell, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Hain, Peter

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

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

  Church, Judith

  Howarth, George(Knowsley North)

  Clapham, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  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, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastem, Ken

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Flynn, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mendelson, Peter

  Galbraith Sam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  506

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Morley, Elliot

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Short, Clare

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Speller, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wilson, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Butler, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bates, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Churchill, Mr

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  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

  507

  Congdon, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  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)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan, Alan

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

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

  Faber, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Legg, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Harris, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  508

  Norris, Steve

  Steen, Anthony

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stephen, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Allan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Sykes, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Richards, Rod

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trimble, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trotter, Neville

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Ward, John

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 274

  Division No. 22]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Bates, Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arriold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  509

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Congdon, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordem, 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)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan, Alan

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Darne Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

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

  Faber, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Legg, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  510

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Madel, Sir David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soames, Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spring, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Merchant, Piers

  Stephen, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Stewart, Allan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sumberg, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sweeney, Walter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Trimble, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wade, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Richards, Rod

  Wells, Bowen

  Riddick, Graham

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Anger, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Austin-Walker, John

  Alton, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  511

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gapes, Mike

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Garrett, John

  Bell, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Berry, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ronnie

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Heppell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Horne Robertson, John

  Church, Judith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dafis, Cynog

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Denham, John

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Litherland, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Etherington, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAllion, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galbraith, Sam

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  512

  MacShane, Denis

  Rogers, Allan

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Madden, Max

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Short, Clare

  Meacher, Michael

  Simpson, Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mudie, George

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Jack

  Murphy, Paul

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tyler, Paul

  Parry, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pope, Greg

  Wareing, Robert N

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Watson, Mike

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wray, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rendel, David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) Clauses 36, 105, 112 and 139 and Schedule 15 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;

  (2) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;

  (3) when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.[Mr. Jack.]

  Committee tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE
  Ordered,
  That Ms Jean Corston and Mr. George Stevenson be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Martyn Jones be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TREASURY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Giles Radice be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Stephen Timms be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Hanson be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Don Touhig be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Soft Drugs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I will concentrate on exposing the dangers of Ecstasy. I know that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I know that the Minister will concentrate on all the good work that the Government are doing to tackle the drugs problem, but I hope that he will also be able to take on board some of the suggestions that I will make.
  I applied for the Adjournment several weeks ago—before the appalling tragedy that occurred at the weekend—because I felt that the problem of so-called "designer" drugs such as Ecstasy needed to be tackled urgently.
  We are aware of the headline cases of Daniel Ashton, of Blackpool, which is not far from my constituency; Leah Betts and, just this weekend, the appalling wasted young life of Andreas Bouzis. How many more of our young people will be wasted or destroyed by Ecstasy before the message gets home?
  Today, on radio, I was accused of being emotional about the issue, and I was told that I should simply look at the facts of taking Ecstasy. I make no apologies for being emotional over the needless death of our young people. I make no apologies for being emotional about the waste of lives and the damage to the quality of life of our young people who are ignorant of the life-destroying side-effects of taking Ecstasy.
  I do not want to stop anyone enjoying himself, but at the same time I want to stop young people killing themselves or wasting their lives. A lot of misinformation is given about Ecstasy, but we are seeing what has been termed one of the biggest mass experiments in the history of mankind, with up to half a million tablets taken every weekend.
  I should like to praise the efforts of Granada Television and its programme, "This Morning" for distributing more than 8,000 copies of the video "Sorted", which is the story of Leah Betts' life and death. That video is required viewing for anyone who feels that it simply will not happen to him or her. I pay tribute to Paul and Jan Betts, who I met recently, for their bravery in sharing their personal tragedy with the rest of nation, which, we hope, will deter other young people from taking Ecstasy.
  I watched Mrs. Josephine Bouzis talk movingly on television about her son, and that has made me more determined than ever that stiffer and more urgent action is needed to clear the streets, night clubs, pubs and schools of the scum who trade in misery and death.
  I have heard the arguments of those who say that we have lost control of drugs and that we should legalise them. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is resolutely against that disastrous course of action. I applaud the work

  515
  of the police, customs officials and voluntary workers, who are fighting the battle. I believe that we all could and should do more.
  Others argue that there would be no problem if all the tablets were tested. Let me remind the House that Leah Betts died after taking a pure Ecstasy tablet. Those tablets are toxic—they are poison. There are those who say that alcohol and tobacco have killed more people than drugs. That is no argument for relaxing the controls on drugs, but it is one for improving the education of our young people about the dangers of abusing those substances.
  What is Ecstasy? We have heard a lot about it, but I suspect that many hon. Members knew nothing about it until 12 months ago. It was patented in 1914 in Germany as an appetite suppressant, MDMA. It is commonly known as Ecstasy, but it has several other names. It is a semi-synthetic chemical compound. In its pure form it is usually a pressed pill, a capsule or even loose powder. It costs between £10 and £20. How cheap the cost of a life these days.
  The drug is taken orally, although it can be taken in other ways. The usual dose ranges from 80 mg to 160 mg when taken orally, although the amounts vary widely, depending on how unlucky the taker is. When MDMA is taken orally, the effects manifest themselves about half an hour later, gradually working up to the full effect in two hours. The after-effects can last for days. The psychological effects, however, can last for years.
  Ecstasy's physical symptoms are wide ranging and can be very subtle. They include dryness of mouth, jaw-clenching, teeth-grinding, sweating or nausea. At higher doses, the effects include increased heart beat, sweating and dizziness. The drug works mainly on one group of neurones, a serotonin system. The centre of the cells, their nuclei, are clustered at the base of our brains. From there, long, wire-like tendrils spread throughout the brain. Users usually experience amphetamine-type stimulation, with appetite loss and the ability to stay awake for long periods.
  Ecstasy also produces hyperactivity, but of a repetitive sort that makes one do the same thing over and again. Illicit laboratories are often set up with little concern for cleanliness. According to Joseph Bono, a supervisory chemist in the special testing department of the American Drug Enforcement Agency, there are many contaminants and by-products in samples that reach his laboratory for analysis. It would seem that not everyone has the same high standards as Glaxo-Wellcome. The Dutch Government should be doing much more to investigate the factories that churn out these tablets by the millions, which then find themselves on this country's streets.
  Why do people take E in the first place? As reported in the "Equinox" programme "Rave New World", shown on Channel 4 last year, the major Ecstasy scene began in this country in 1988 with the advent of acid house music. That was the birth of the rave scene and the drug Ecstasy was a major factor in its subsequent success. People who took the drug reported that it made them feel amiable and friendly to strangers, and that they could dance all night. As one raver put it:
  "There was just this massive rush of…happiness."
  Despite being a class-A drug, which means that dealing carries a maximum life sentence, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of doses are taken every week. It is estimated that up to 2 million Britons have tried Ecstasy.
  516
  According to Dr. John Henry, a consultant physician for the national poisons unit at Guy's hospital:
  "In the late 1980s, the drug was reformulated…in a cultural sense. The rave scene in England provided a new formula, a new package, a new culture."
  With that new culture, however, came the new dangers that have proved lethal to a host of young people, including the most recent tragic death of Andreas Bouzis in a south London club at the weekend.
  There is no debate that one damages oneself when one takes Ecstasy, but as yet no one knows the extent of the long-term effects. If we do not do something to remedy that, the effects could be disastrous. In most of the serious cases reported, the users had collapsed unconscious or started to convulse while dancing. The most important things to remember about this drug are that previous experience is no guarantee of safety and that Ecstasy hides discomfort and pain. That means that, if people overheat or dehydrate from dancing for too long, instead of resting for a while and getting some cold air or a drink, they may just carry on dancing until they reach a fatal temperature. In the same way, it would normally be impossible to drink enough water to kill oneself. However, Leah Betts drank three litres of water.
  As Ecstasy causes a rise in blood pressure, it can also be fatal to someone with a weak heart, and asthmatics have been known to die from attacks under the drug's influence. There is also the possibility of kidney failure. Lastly, some deaths are due to people simply being allergic to the drug or by Ecstasy reacting with other drugs that the person may be taking at that time. It is known to react badly with certain anti-depressants.
  Dr. Henry put the immediate dangers most succinctly:
  "Your blood clotting goes haywire, your brain begins to dysfunction and your heart can pack up."
  However, there is serious cause for concern at the long-term risks to the mental and physical health of people who take Ecstasy on a regular basis. Dr. Karl Jansen of Maudsley hospital had a patient who took about 100 Ecstasy tablets and who
  "had depersonalisation/derealisation syndrome [where the person lacks emotion and feels unreal]. Its very unpleasant and has lasted over 2 years."
  He also warns that anxiety disorders can be caused by the use of this drug:
  "you feel anxious all the time, or chronic in the form of panic attacks. Depression and mania definitely can be triggered by Ecstasy."
  The most worrying data for people who use Ecstasy regularly must be that produced by Dr. Ricaute, assistant professor of neurology at the John Hopkins School of Medicine. In his study, 17 monkeys were given doses equivalent to that of three average street tablets of Ecstasy and they were analysed for regional brain content of serotonin after two weeks. His findings showed a striking loss of certain nerve fibres in the cerebral cortex of the monkeys. Commenting on the findings, Dr. Ricaute said:
  "The data we have so far is that MDMA is a highly neuro-toxic substance, that if taken…could result in brain injury…MDMA has the potential for producing neuro-toxic effects, at least in animals, after a single moderate dose."
  Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): My hon. Friend has kindly allowed me to say a few words here. First, I praise him for bringing up this horrible subject in an Adjournment debate. Secondly, I want to comment on the

  517
  fact that the debate is described on the Order Paper as being about "soft drugs". The House has heard my hon. Friend's description of what Ecstasy can do. In no way can such a drug be described as a soft drug. There is no such thing as a soft drug. Drugs do terrible harm and my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to draw the House's attention to the harm that Ecstasy can do. I am glad that that is recognised in the Government's White Paper and in their activities to educate young people to keep away from all drugs. I am sure that my hon. Friend praises that.
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He is right to say that many people consider Ecstasy to be a soft drug. It is, of course, a class A drug, but the perception is that it is different from other hard drugs. It is not, for all the reasons that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) have given.
  I shall now suggest one or two areas in which the Government will, I hope, seriously consider taking further action, along with the excellent programme they have to tackle drugs on the wider scale. I know that we have the drugs help line and the crimestoppers line. I congratulate the Daily Mirror which has given £10,000 to the crimestoppers line to encourage people to give information about those who are pushing drugs. That is commendable and I hope that other newspapers will follow that lead.
  However, many people cannot remember the numbers of the drugs help line or the crimestoppers line. There is probably more chance of getting through to the cones hot line than of getting through to the other numbers. I suggest that just as we have a three-digit number for accidents and emergencies, we should have a drugs hotline number of three digits—perhaps 911—which everybody could remember. That would be extremely useful for people in clubs and pubs who could then use the number to give information about people pushing drugs.
  There should be better rewards for those who give information that leads to the prosecution of those who push drugs in our pubs and clubs. In the vast majority of cases, people give the information freely because they know that it could help to save the lives of their friends. However, those who have, for example, information from the drugs underworld may be lured by the possibility of getting at least some money for giving information that will put the criminals behind bars and will lead to many more drugs being destroyed.
  There is also the problem of drugs being distributed in pubs and clubs. I praise the work of the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association in producing a booklet which is aimed at club and pub owners so that they can spot some of the telltale signs of whether drugs are being pushed or used in their clubs. Unfortunately, not every pub owner and club owner is responsible. We should give support to the police and new guidelines to the courts. If it is obvious that the owners of the pubs and clubs are turning a blind eye to what is going on in their premises and if the people who are using them cannot be guaranteed to be safe, the pubs and clubs should be closed down.
  There should be more research into the long-term ill-effects of taking Ecstasy and other so-called "designer" drugs. We must get across to young people the fact that it is not simply that people die—that is tragic enough, as
  518
  one can see from the families and friends who are left behind—but that there are long-term effects on those who take the drugs. They are under a lot of pressure. I believe that in 10 or 15 years' time—perhaps a lot sooner than that-we shall see the side-effects of taking Ecstasy and how appalling the consequences can be to individuals and their families. When we have that information, we must get it into clubs, pubs, youth clubs, night clubs and schools so that it reaches the youth culture, which has put Ecstasy on such a pedestal that it is considered different from other drugs. Then we will be able to expose Ecstasy for what it is. We must however remember that the vast majority of young people go to night clubs and pubs and enjoy themselves without taking any Ecstasy whatever, and long may that continue.
  I congratulate Radio 1 on the campaigns that it regularly runs. It has a mass youth audience and it is able to reach the people to whom we need to talk. I understand that it is starting another campaign in October. Given the problem of the number of people taking so-called designer drugs, I hope that it will consider either bringing forward that campaign or running another one directed specifically at so-called designer drugs.
  We need to ram the message home. We need to redouble our efforts on all fronts. I am certain that we can win this war; more important, this is a war that we must win.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on bringing this subject to the Floor of the House and on the way in which he has addressed it—packing his facts and ideas into a short space of time. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for his pertinent intervention.
  I suppose that, if one is looking for a text for this debate, one need look no further than the words spoken on behalf of the young girl Helen Cousins—they were not spoken by her, because she could not speak—who survived the horror of Ecstasy. Her words to us and other young people were:
  "Ecstasy is not worth the dance with death."
  We should seek to promote that lesson, today and always.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to the tragic death of Daniel Ashton in Blackpool, and to Leah Betts, whose death continues to weigh heavily on all our minds. As he also said, in my borough of Wandsworth last weekend, I was called out because another tragedy had struck. This time, the young Andreas Bouzis from the Greek Cypriot community died as a result of taking Ecstasy at a club.
  Those individual tragedies are salutary reminders to us all of the misery and havoc that drugs can bring to the lives of ordinary, close-loving families. The blight of drugs is a worldwide phenomenon. It wrecks lives—all too often young lives—it undermines families, causing untold heartache and worry for parents, brothers and sisters of its victims when it strikes, and of course it shakes communities through crime and the fear of crime.
  That is why the Prime Minister has made it clear that tackling the drugs problem is a priority for the Government. The White Paper "Tackling Drugs

  519
  Together", which we published in May and was signed by five Ministers from Departments across the Government, set out a three-year strategy to bring all the weapons available to bear on the drugs problem.
  For my Department, one of the key tasks in the strategy is to help stop young people experimenting with drugs in the first place—to persuade those who are dabbling at the edges of the drugs scene to stop and seek safer pleasures elsewhere, and to plant the seeds of doubt in those who are misusing drugs regularly.
  One of the first tasks is to tackle the comforting distinction to which my hon. Friends have referred: the so-called distinction between soft and hard drugs. It gives the misleading and dangerously reassuring message to misusers that the so-called recreational drugs can be taken with impunity. The word "soft" does not carry the associations of the needle, the crack house, addiction, prostitution and disease, which are conjured up by heroin addicts or crack cocaine users. Among the great majority of young people, that hard drug scene is simply seen as sad and pathetic, and a world distant from their own experience.
  It would be foolish to suggest that all drugs are of equal harm. That is not the Government's view. There is a spectrum of harm on various levels. Some drugs, such as heroin, are harmful because of their addictive qualities and the life style that often flows from addiction. Some are harmful because of the way in which they are administered—whether ingested, injected or inhaled. Inhaling butane can and does kill. Injecting drugs risks transmission of blood-borne diseases. Taking pills of dubious content is a lottery.
  No serious commentator is suggesting that smoking cannabis equates with injecting heroin, but it is naive to say that soft drugs are risk-free. In fact, so-called soft drugs do carry risks, which is why they remain proscribed. Ecstasy, to which my hon. Friend referred in particular, is a case in point.
  The law clearly regards Ecstasy as a hard drug. It has been classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and its illicit use is subject to the strictest penalties. As it is a class A drug, those in possession of Ecstasy can be imprisoned for up to seven years, and those trafficking in it can be imprisoned for life.
  My hon. Friend suggested that sentences should be tougher. No doubt the courts will take note of the points he made, but he will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced radical new proposals on sentencing. They recognise that persistent drug dealers are a menace to society, deserving of long stretches in prison. My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed that there should be a stiff minimum sentence for persistent dealers. I, too, want to draw attention to the crimestoppers initiative and its "Say no and phone" campaign to encourage information about dealers.
  As for clubs which turn a blind eye to people dealing or misusing drugs, licensing authorities have powers to revoke the entertainment licence of any establishment that does not meet the conditions of that licence. I would expect them to do so in such circumstances.
  Although science, Government and misusers still know relatively little about Ecstasy and its effects, what we do know argues clearly against any description of the drug as "soft". It can cause psychological dependence.
  520
  Misusers may experience irritability, depression, insomnia or hypothermia after the initial effects have worn off. Feelings of paranoia are not uncommon, and cases of paranoid psychosis have been reported. There is also evidence of an association between Ecstasy use and liver damage.
  My Department has been working—as my hon. Friend asked us—on expanding our understanding of the drug. Dr. John Henry, of the national poisons unit at Guy's, a leading expert on the toxic effects of Ecstasy, has been particularly helpful. We are learning of syndromes associated with the drug, such as the repetitive behaviour to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that one individual obsessively smoked hundreds of cigarettes in the space of hours, leading to death through traumatic damage to his respiratory system. Others may do the same when drinking water. What is clear is that, as knowledge expands, it is knowledge about risks, not benefits.
  The content of these illicitly manufactured tablets is highly variable, with fly-by-night chemists in far-off places producing pills made up of a range of chemicals. The effects are correspondingly variable. People who take the drug do not know what they have taken until it has taken effect and it is too late.
  Finally, we are all aware of the tragic deaths that have been linked to this drug. Again, we still have much to learn about the drug's toxicity, but symptoms attributed to Ecstasy-related deaths include convulsions, dilated pupils, very low blood pressure, accelerated heart rate, high temperature and coma. Death through heart failure is known to have occurred, but most deaths have been caused by respiratory collapse resulting from blood coagulating in the lungs. So much, then, for the "soft" drug label.
  My hon. Friend has urged us to send a message, and the key aim for Government is to arm both young people and their parents with the facts about drugs—the health risks, the risks of addiction, the legal risks, the risk of damaging relationships with friends and families and the risk to future careers. We cannot simply state the risks and then walk away from the problem: we also need to give young people the skills they need to be able to make informed and responsible decisions to resist drugs misuse. Over the next three years, the Department of Health will be co-ordinating publicity campaigns and developing and improving access to materials aimed at motivating young people to resist drug misuse.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the drugs helpline, and he may have seen or heard the advertisements promoting it. Calls to the service are free and confidential, and lines are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The helpline number—for my hon. Friend's benefit—is 0800 77 66 00.
  The staff who run the helpline have a good knowledge of drug misuse issues and can refer those callers who need specialist help to agencies that can provide the right advice and support. I would urge anyone who wants to know more or who is worried about drugs misuse by a friend or a family member to contact the helpline.
  My hon. Friend raised the possibility of a new three-figure drugs hotline number for emergencies. The helpline is an advice line, and callers who are faced with an emergency are advised to dial 999 immediately—a caller to another three-figure number would be given the same advice. The early signs are that the people are using the longer number—20,000 calls were answered in

  521
  November alone. I will, however, bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion when we are considering the evaluation of the helpline in the spring. Meanwhile, the number is 0800 77 66 00.
  Misusers and those at risk of misuse are, of course, a key focus of our campaigns, but we are also addressing the needs of parents. I am acutely aware of the powerlessness that parents can sometimes feel in the face of drug misuse or the suspicion of drugs misuse in their family. The fear and anguish that drugs misuse can cause to them is immeasurable.
  I know that hon Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the parents of Leah Betts. Their dignity in such tragic circumstances, and their determination to prevent other families from suffering as they have, has been remarkable. We have seen no less courage and dignity from the Cousins and Bouzis families.
  The aim of our campaigns for parents has been to help parents tackle drugs issues with their children, to give practical advice on how to approach such a sensitive issue,
  522
  to help them recognise the signs of drugs misuse or solvent abuse in their children, to tell parents where they can go for more help or information, and to inform them about the drugs their children might be misusing and the language that young people use to talk about them. The demand for this literature has been remarkable. There is clearly a thirst for knowledge about drugs among parents, and we will continue to work to meet that need.
  There are no quick and easy solutions to the complex problem of drugs misuse. The Government's strategy represents a new impetus to galvanise all the key players in a determined and concerted effort on a range of fronts to tackle drugs together. In taking all this work forward, what must remain at the forefront of all our minds is the human element—the individual tragedies of ruined lives and distraught parents. It is those tragedies which lie at the heart of "Tackling Drugs Together", and that is why the Government will continue the fight against drugs misuse with vigour and determination.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if all the functions of the Central Office of Information will be sold if it becomes privatised; and if he will make a statement; [8494]

  (2) what negotiations are being carried out in respect of privatising the Central Office of Information; and if he will make a statement. [8477]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 23 November 1995,Official Report, column 235, in which I confirmed that the Central Office of Information will continue as a next steps agency.

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 (established) £

  Total staff costs

  263,919

  247,428

  393,933

  547,917

  575,761

  475,756

  Entertainment

  110

  329

  1,152

  1,002

  3,373

  1,259

  Stationery

  641

  1,774

  3,863

  2,262

  8,386

  30,193

  Expenditure on the other items in each of the last five years is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department which was £64,646,000 in 1994–951. Projections for 1995–96 are in line with overall expenditure for next year published in the Public Expenditure Survey statement.
  1This includes the running costs for the Office of Science and Technology, now transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry.

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 (est.) £

  Overseas travel and accommodation (Minister and advisers)

  nil

  10,432

  30,710

  17,700

  65,000

  Car and chauffeuring costs

  56,869

  122,734

  194,460

  138,936

  114,561

  Ministerial security costs

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Domestic travel and accommodation (Minister and advisers)

  48

  17,473

  9,898

  7,210

  9,100

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by his Department on behalf of Ministers and ex-Ministers: and if he will name the individuals concerned; [8757]

  Open Government Code
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide details of the publicity programme aimed at the general public designed to spread knowledge of the open government code; and how much newspaper advertising has been undertaken. [8558]

  Mr. Willetts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 January,Official Report, column 121, setting out details of the publicity programme for the code. Paid newspaper advertising has not been used as part of the programme.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6397]

  Mr. Freeman
  the table shows costs for the running of the OPS private offices since 1990–91 with an estimate for 1995–96.

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6416]

  Mr. Freeman
  The total costs for these items for the Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary and the private offices are given in the table.

  (2) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by the Department on behalf of current and past (a) civil servants and (b) advisers and secondees. [8744]

  Mr. Freeman
  No legal costs have been incurred by my Department on behalf of Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants, former civil servants or other advisors or
  335
  secondees of my Department in connection with the Scott inquiry. The cost of any advice in connection with the Scott inquiry given by Government lawyers as part of their normal duties cannot be quantified.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 121, what factors led his Department to accept photocopiers on variable contracts of three, four and five years over and above the leasing costs; and what is the minimum contractual cost of using and maintaining (a) the 18 photocopiers on three-year contracts, (b) the three photocopiers on four-year contracts and (c) the four photocopiers on five-year contracts. [8920]

  Mr. Willetts
  The factors taken into account when deciding the length of contract include the size of the machine, the projected copy volumes and the need for flexibility in the light of changing circumstances.

  The minimum total cost of leasing (a) the 18 photocopiers on three-year contracts is £36,806 per annum, (b) that of the three photocopiers on four-year contracts is £15,969 per annum and (c) that of the four photocopiers on five-year contracts is £3,315 per annum.

  Cabinet Committees
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many times(a) the Ministerial Committee on the Environment, (b) the Ministerial Committee on Competitiveness and (c) the Ministerial Committee on Economic and Domestic Policy have met since 1 January 1995; [8670]

  (2) how many papers have been placed before the Cabinet between 1 July and 31 December 1995; how many of these papers were accompanied by a statement of the likely environmental implications; and for each paper which had environmental implications statements which Government Department took the lead in preparing the paper. [8671]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes clear that papers or other information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet or Cabinet Committees are not normally made public, in order to protect the principle of collective responsibility. It also makes clear that the papers for the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees should, wherever appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many mobile telephones were supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each year how many suppliers were involved. [9125]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, 9 January, column 121.

HEALTH

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will launch a publicity campaign to raise the awareness of breast cancer in older women, with particular reference to breast screen tests; and if he will make a statement. [8428]

  Mr. Horam
  The national breast screening programme, with Age Concern, has launched an educational drive to inform women aged 65 and over of the importance of continued breast awareness and about their right to request breast screening every three years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities who currently refuse to breast screen women aged 65 years and over. [8427]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no such authorities.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will defer all further hospital closures, including those pending until alternative arrangements have been put in place for patient care with particular reference to elderly patients. [9154]

  Mr. Horam
  No. Decisions on hospital closures are primarily for local health authorities, and are referred to Ministers only where the community health council contests the proposed closure.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts have been required by him to pay to central funds all or part of their reserve because they have had an excessive cash surplus; and what amounts were involved. [8731]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts have borrowed on an unguaranteed basis; and to what level in each year since their inception. [8713]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of individual national health service trusts to secure best value for money from their borrowing. Information on trust borrowing on an unguaranteed basis is not available centrally.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received from experiments undertaken on mice as to the cross-species movement of BSE and the possible barrier to the harming of human beings by infected poisons from animals; and if he will make a statement. [8695]

  Mr. Horam
  We are aware of the research currently being conducted by Professor John Collinge to investigate whether bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, can be transmitted to mice which have been genetically engineered to carry the human prion protein. Recently published interim results show that, after inoculation with BSE infected material, such mice have failed to develop spongiform encephalopathy within the time taken by
  337
  similar mice following inoculation with Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease infected material. While this is encouraging, considerable further research is need before any firm conclusions can be drawn about the theoretical risk of BSE transmission to humans.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the allocations made to individual trusts to pursue private finance initiative bids. [9033]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts develop outline business cases for capital investment at their own expense. Where an outline business case is approved, regional offices have discretion to allocate funds for development of the full business case for the investment, a process which includes exploring the potential for a private finance solution. The capital investment manual, copies of which are available in the Library, suggests a budget of around 1 per cent. of the estimated value of the capital investment for the preparation of the outline and full business cases, including any costs incurred in testing for private finance, as well as other costs, such as design work. Actual figures on amounts allocated to develop full business cases are not available centrally.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities in England in order of population. [8877]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table. The table relates to current 1995–1996 district health—authority boundaries and is based upon the resident population estimates for mid-1994, the latest available.

  District Health Authorities in England ranked in order of population

  District Health Authority

  Estimated resident population mid-1994 (thousands)

  West Kent

  963

  Leicestershire

  917

  North Essex

  873

  Bristol and District

  848

  Wiltshire and Bath

  771

  Berkshire

  768

  South-east London

  732

  North Yorkshire

  727

  East Sussex

  727

  Leeds

  725

  West Sussex

  720

  South Essex

  697

  Dorset

  672

  South Cheshire

  665

  Buckinghamshire

  660

  Suffolk

  649

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  649

  Nottingham

  636

  Western Surrey

  636

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  617

  East Norfolk

  611

  Lincolnshire

  606

  North and Mid Hampshire

  604

  East London and the City

  595

  Northamptonshire

  595

  Oxfordshire

  590

  Plymouth and Torbay

  586

  338

  District Health Authorities in England ranked in order of population

  District Health Authority

  Estimated resident population mid-1994 (thousands)

  South Staffordshire

  583

  East Kent

  583

  North Birmingham

  581

  West Yorkshire

  580

  Wigan and Bolton

  579

  Tees

  560

  Southern Derbyshire

  552

  Gloucestershire

  549

  Bedfordshire

  543

  Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

  538

  Sheffield

  530

  East Riding

  529

  East Lancashire

  506

  Warwickshire

  496

  East and North Hertfordshire

  488

  Bradford

  482

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  479

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  477

  Liverpool

  474

  West Pennine

  473

  New River

  473

  North Staffordshire

  472

  Southampton and South-west Hampshire

  467

  North-west Lancashire

  465

  Exeter and North Devon

  465

  Brent and Harrow

  460

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  455

  Salford and Trafford

  445

  Manchester

  435

  Bexley and Greenwich

  434

  South Birmingham

  428

  Somerset

  423

  Shropshire

  416

  Eastern Surrey

  411

  North-west Anglia

  408

  Bury and Rochdale

  396

  North Nottinghamshire

  396

  Barking and Havering

  377

  North Derbyshire

  371

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe

  361

  South Tyne

  359

  Camden and Islington

  358

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  341

  St Helens and Knowsley

  335

  Wirral

  333

  North Durham

  329

  Croydon

  327

  North Cumbria

  318

  Wakefield

  317

  Dudley

  312

  South Lancashire

  311

  North Cheshire

  310

  Barnet

  308

  Northumberland

  308

  Kingston and Richmond

  307

  Morecambe Bay

  307

  Coventry

  303

  Cambridge

  299

  Sunderland

  296

  Sandwell

  294

  Sefton

  293

  Doncaster

  293

  Bromley

  292

  Stockport

  289

  South Durham

  280

  North Worcestershire

  278

  Walsall

  264

  339

  District Health Authorities in England ranked in order of population

  District Health Authority

  Estimated resident population mid-1994 (thousands)

  North-west Hertfordshire

  263

  Worcester and District

  257

  Rotherham

  256

  South-west Hertfordshire

  250

  Wolverhampton

  244

  Hillingdon

  243

  Barnsley

  226

  Solihull

  202

  Herefordshire

  165

  Huntingdon

  139

  Isle of Wight

  125

  England

  48,707

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  NHS Trusts (Borrowing)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts have been given permission by the Secretary of State to borrow in currencies other than sterling, indicating the amount and the currency concerned. [8712]

  Mr. Horam
  No trust has been given permission by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to borrow in currencies other than sterling.

  Discharged Mental Health Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on(a) suicides and (b) homicides committed by (i) current and (ii) discharged mental health patients. [9101]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on homicides and suicides by current and recently discharged mental health patients is collected by the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people. The inquiry is funded by, but independent of, the Department of Health.

  Carers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current instructions he has issued to local authorities on the effects of means testing of those patients in need of long-term care on caring spouses and family; and if he will make a statement. [9118]

  Mr. Bowis
  The most recent guidance to local authorities was issued in December in circular LAC(95)21, and an amendment to the charging for residential accommodation guide was issued at the same time, advising local authorities that they should consider use of their discretion where a married resident in residential accommodation is the main recipient of a couple's income at the point when a financial assessment is made, and also advises what factors and circumstances should he taken into account. Copies of the circular and the charging for residential accommodation guide are available in the Library. The Government intend to change the regulations with effect from April 1996 so that local authorities will he required to disregard half of the occupational pension of a resident whose spouse remains at home.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will conduct a survey for publication of the practice of all local authorities to establish whether they are exercising the discretion in favour of spouses of which they were reminded in his Department's circular LAC(94)1 in January 1994, paragraphs 6 and 7 regarding charges for residential or nursing home accommodation; if he will require an authority failing to exercise this discretion in favour of spouses to provide an explanation; and if he will make a statement. [9121]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no plans to do so. It is for local authorities to decide how and to what extent they exercise their discretion. Regulations will however, shortly be laid before Parliament to require local authorities to disregard from the means test half of the occupational pension of a resident whose spouse remains at home

  Single-sex Wards
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to improve the provision of single-sex accommodation by NHS trusts. [7531]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities and trusts to decide how best to use the accommodation available to them.

  Female NHS Managers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of non-clinical managers in the NHS earning over £30,000 per year were women for each year since 1991; [7532]

  (2) how many chief executives of hospital trusts were women in each year since 1991. [7534]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to improve the representation of women in the higher levels of management in the NHS. [7533]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health, on behalf of the national health service, is a founder member of opportunity 2000—the business-led campaign to improve the representation of women at the top of organisations.

  The NHS women's unit was established in October 1991 to take forward work on implementing Opportunity 2000 and eight goals were issued to the service for achievement by 31 December 1994, including a goal to increase the proportion of women in general management posts from 18 per cent. in 1991 to 30 per cent. in 1994.

  As part of the policy review in March 1995, a special survey was undertaken which showed that women had been appointed to 38 per cent.—83 out of 214—of vacant chief executive general manager posts filled in the three years to 31 December 1994, with women now occupying 28 per cent. of posts at this level.

  The NHS executive was commended on its outstanding achievement at the first Opportunity 2000 awards ceremony held in October 1995. Building on this success, a new set of goals was issued to the service for

  341
  achievement by 30 September 1998 including a goal to increase the percentage of women in top management posts to 35 per cent.

  Cervical Cytology
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of GP practices met higher rate targets for cervical cytology services by family health services authority for each year since 1990. [7535]

  Mr. Malone
  Target information is collected at general practitioner, not practice, level. The percentage of unrestricted principles meeting both the lower and the higher targets for April 1990 to April 1994 will be placed in the Library.

  Abortion
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the district health authorities not currently purchasing abortion services; and if he will make a statement. [7536]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities are responsible for securing services to meet the health needs of their population. Information about individual health authority, plans is not available centrally.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department is monitoring the performance of NHS trusts on meeting the patients charter standards on mixed-sex wards; [7537]

  (2) how many NHS trusts are currently meeting the patients charter standard on mixed-sex wards. [7538]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to monitor the performance of those hospitals with which they place contracts. Their annual patients charter reports should include information on hospitals' performance against the standards. In addition, the national health service executive has commissioned a survey in two regions on policies relating to mixed-sex wards and the suitability of wards for mixed-sex use. The results of that survey will be available shortly.

  Derriford Hospital (Correspondence)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 21 August from the consultant in pain management at Derriford hospital. Plymouth; and what factors have prevented him from replying hitherto. [8186]

  12 July

  16 September

  13 September

  11 October

  15 November

  13 December

  Brentwood

  752

  1,796

  1,296

  1,079

  1,108

  1,077

  Cambridge

  658

  2,169

  1,052

  591

  620

  527

  Colindale

  1,390

  1,620

  1,399

  1,216

  1,024

  952

  Tooting

  1,411

  1,885

  2,091

  1,536

  1,786

  1,497

  Birmingham

  1,622

  3,275

  3,467

  2,139

  2,729

  1,113

  Bristol

  1,343

  2,033

  1,695

  1,295

  1,565

  1,030

  Oxford

  748

  1,973

  1,562

  1,307

  1,175

  727

  342
  Mr. Horam
  Officials have now replied to the inquiry. I regret the delay which occurred; this was due to an oversight.

  Care Programme Approach
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 945, which (a) health authorities and (b) trusts have (i) implemented and (ii) not implemented the care programme approach. [9185]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service executive has requested reports on the progress made towards fully implementing the care programme approach.

  NHS (Unnecessary Treatments)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has received alleging(a) unnecessary and (b) ineffective treatments provided by the national health service; what proposals he has to remedy such defects; and if he will make a statement. [8562]

  Mr. Horam
  A great deal of scientific evidence now exists about the effectiveness of health services. Improving the effectiveness of services is a priority for the national health service.

  On 10 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the publication of "Promoting Clinical Effectiveness". The booklet has been developed to support the work of all those involved in identifying and reviewing the effectiveness of clinical services. It explains where to get information on effectiveness, how this information can be used to improve services locally and how the results of change can he monitored. The NHS executive will hold health authorities to account for increasing their investment in healthcare which is now known to be more effective. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received on the levels of blood held at the blood transfusion centres; and what changes have taken place during the last six months of 1995 at each of these centres. [8563]

  Mr. Horam
  Blood stocks at blood centres are quite low at present, but this is often the case at this time of year because of seasonal and other fluctuations in supply and demand. Stocks at blood centres are not the whole picture. Hospitals also have their own blood banks, drawing supplies from the national blood service blood banks.

  The figures over the last six months for individual centres are:
  343

  12 July

  16 September

  13 September

  11 October

  15 November

  13 December

  Wessex

  804

  1,966

  1,923

  1,761

  1,849

  1,061

  Lancaster

  421

  624

  646

  568

  329

  358

  Leeds

  1,866

  2,596

  2,281

  2,408

  1,168

  920

  Liverpool

  1,604

  2,516

  2,139

  2,372

  1,341

  954

  Manchester

  751

  1,412

  601

  742

  825

  527

  Newcastle

  965

  1,920

  1,667

  1,456

  1,045

  1,044

  Trent

  950

  2,165

  1,535

  1,318

  1,213

  1,147

  Totals

  15,485

  27,950

  23,354

  19,788

  17,777

  12,934

  These figures are based on the position on the middle Wednesday of each month. There have been no organisational changes at any of the blood centres during this period. The National Blood Authority arranges for supplies to be moved between centres as necessary, so assistance can be given if there are particular problems in any area.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) guidelines and (b) other advice has been issued to (i) NHS bodies and (ii) other organisations regarding the use of the private finance initiative. [9082]

  Mr. Horam
  Current guidelines and advice on the private finance initiative issued by the national health service executive are as follows:"The Capital Investment Manual" (HMSO 1994),
  "Private Finance and Capital Investment Projects",(HSG(95)15),
  "Information Management and Technology (IM&T) Procurement and Private Finance" (HSG(95)48).

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  It is not part of our responsibility to issue guidelines or advice on private finance to other organisations. Guidelines issued by the Treasury on private finance matters across the public service, including the NHS, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which capital projects are currently being considered under the private finance initiative; and what is the cost of each project. [9055]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave him oh 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 608.

  Since that reply, two further schemes with a capital value more than £1 million have been approved by the national health service executive under the private finance initiative, as follows:
  South Buckinghamshire NHS trust; new hospital developments at High Wycombe and Amersham at a capital value of £35 million
  Havering Hospitals NHS trust: renewal and maintenance of engineering plant and equipment through a technical service programme. Capital value £2.1 million.

  Elective Surgery
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the number of cancellations of elective surgical admissions by NHS trusts in Greater London in(a) October, (b) November and (c) December; and if he will make a statement; [9163]

  (2) how many cancellations of elective non-urgent surgical admissions were made by the Greenwich Healthcare NHS trusts (a) over the weekend of 5 January and (b) on 8 January; and if he will make a statement. [9162]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those health commissions which have decided that in vitro fertilisation services will(a) be routinely purchased and (b) not be purchased; and if he will make a statement; [8580]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that in vitro fertilisation services are available from every health commission; and if he will make a statement. [8581]

  Mr. Horam
  Information about individual health authority plans is not held centrally.

  Decisions about provision, priority and resources for infertility services, including in vitro fertilisation treatment are made by individual health authorities, who are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Decisions must he made on the basis of sound evidence.

  Medical Locums
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1995 on national health service staff,Official Report, column 614, if he will provide details of medical locums by specialty. [8652]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 January Official Report, column 74.

  "NHS Magazine"
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost so far of producing and distributing "NHS Magazine"; how much has been raised from advertising; and if he will make a statement. [8921]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service executive is reducing the volume of publications issued and targeting printed communications more precisely to ensure
  345
  resources are used to best effect. As a result of a review of publications, the executive ceased production of six NHS newsletters, making an estimated annual saving of £227,000. The executive is also seeking a more cost-effective approach, supporting the costs of the "NHS Magazine" with advertising.

  "NHS Magazine" acts as a vehicle for sharing best practice within the NHS. It also carries the most up to date quarterly data about NHS performance, helping to ensure that the service remains properly accountable to those it serves.

  Production costs/gross revenues broken down by issue are:

  Issue 1 £

  Issue 2 £

  Issue 3 £

  Production

  (Editorial/photography/design/reproduction, print)

  41,886

  43,914

  50,486

  Advertising revenue

  10,900

  16,850

  30,500

  Distribution costs for the first three issues were £17,664.

  Emergency Admissions (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made on the impact of other hospital care of the number of emergency medical admissions to London hospitals during the current winter; and if he will make a statement. [9165]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities and national health service trusts are responsible for ensuring that local healthcare needs are met.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency medical admissions were made by each London NHS trust in each month during the period October 1994 to January 1996. [9200]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on method of admission by region of treatment is published in "Hospital Episode Statistics—Volume 1", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest year for which information is available is 1993–94.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that no changes will be made in relation to the closure of the accident and emergency department of Edgware general hospital until the assurances given by his predecessor in the debate on 10 May 1995,Official Report, columns 784–85, have been fully implemented. [8585]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an official visit to Edgware general hospital. [8578]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Acute Bed Closures (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds closed in each London NHS trust during the period 1993 to 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9164]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally provides details of the average daily number of available beds in each national health service trust for 1993–94 and 1994–95. This information is published annually in Bed availability for England, copies of which are available in the Library. Organisational changes mean that the data for each trust may not be strictly comparable over time.

  Working Lunches
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent in his Department and its associated agencies on working lunches in the year 1995–96 to date; and what is the projected amount for the full year. [9170]

  Mr. Horam
  The amount of expenditure on working lunches to the end of December this financial year is:

  £

  Department

  182,889

  Agencies

  333

  Total

  183,222

  It is expected that hospitality expenditure for the Department will continue at the current rate for the remainder of the year. The agencies are projecting total expenditure for the year of the order of £380.

  Income Support
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines for hospitals for reimbursement of travel costs for those in receipt of income support; if the guidelines recognise the UB40 as a proof of receipt of income support; what proof of being in receipt of income support is required for those not paid by an order book; and what was the last occasion on which the guidelines were amended. [9530]

  Mr. Horam
  The guidelines for reimbursement of the cost of travel to hospital do not recognise form UB40 as proof of receipt of income support because not everybody who is issued with that form is in receipt of that benefit. For those who are not paid income support by an order book, one of forms B3, C3, FF260 or FF260A covering the day they attend the hospital, can be presented as proof of eligibility.

  The guidelines were last amended in October 1994 with a reminder being sent out in May 1995. The list of documents which can be produced as proof of eligibility was reviewed in 1995 and set out in leaflet H11 which was effective from April 1995.
  347
  Copies of the guidelines and of leaflet H11 have been placed in the Library.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of waiting list initiative funding and how many patients have been treated(a) by region and (b) by district and in each year since its inception. [9513]

  Distribution of central waiting times fund 1987–1994

  Allocations (£000s)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Northern

  1,700

  1,925

  1,737

  1,798

  1,665

  2,216

  3,002

  14,043

  Yorkshire

  1,757

  2,097

  2,538

  2,017

  2,178

  2,659

  3,562

  16,808

  Trent

  2,650

  2,895

  2,489

  2,923

  2,779

  3,307

  3,988

  21,031

  East Anglia

  1,018

  1,046

  1,327

  1,135

  2,099

  1,846

  1,939

  10,410

  North-west Thames

  1,590

  2,316

  2,428

  1,690

  2,768

  3,549

  5,230

  19,571

  North-east Thames

  2,070

  2,767

  3,400

  3,808

  4,769

  3,169

  4,083

  24,066

  South-east Thames

  2,040

  2,350

  2,653

  2,738

  3,909

  3,562

  5,220

  22,472

  South-west Thames

  1,330

  2,013

  1,674

  2,138

  2,938

  2,332

  3,172

  15,597

  Wessex

  1,400

  1,609

  1,518

  2,024

  2,217

  2,317

  2,875

  13,960

  Oxford

  1,010

  1,163

  992

  1,638

  1,733

  2,056

  2,604

  11,196

  South Western

  1,650

  1,915

  1,665

  1,546

  2,137

  2,773

  3,537

  15,223

  West Midlands

  3,120

  3,354

  3,250

  4,472

  4,440

  3,424

  4,780

  26,840

  Mersey

  1,350

  1,693

  1,925

  1,515

  2,300

  2,272

  2,579

  13,634

  North Western

  2,295

  256

  2,407

  2,860

  2,735

  3,344

  4,311

  18,208

  Special Health Authorities

  —

  140

  301

  200

  420

  530

  662

  2,253

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  266

  498

  518

  249

  147

  1,678

  Total

  24,980

  27,539

  30,570

  33,000

  39,605

  39,605

  51,691

  246,990

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department holds on the proportion of waiting list initiative funding that has been spent in the private sector; [9538]

  (2) what monitoring is undertaken of clinical standards for the private sector in respect of patients being treated under the waiting list initiative. [9517]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the proportion of waiting list initiative funding spent in the private sector is not available centrally. Monitoring of the standard of care, wherever it is provided, is a matter for the relevant purchaser.
  348
  Mr. Horam
  A national waiting time fund existed from 1987–88 to 1993–94. Distribution was to regional health authorities and details of the allocations made are shown in the table. Information on allocations to districts is not available centrally.

  The numbers of patients treated under waiting list initiatives are not separately identified. From September 1987 to September 1995 the number of patients waiting more than 12 months has reduced from 209,440 to 27,900 and the number waiting more that two years has fallen from 90,470 to nil.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates and on what matters, in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport. [9095]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been many contacts between my Department and the Department of Transport concerning the Royal Commission report since its publication in October 1994, including several discussions at both official and ministerial level.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Facilities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what new facilities are planned to be available after the next general election. [7473]

  Mr. Beith
  The major new facilities planned are the phase II new parliamentary building, which is due to open in 1999, and a visitors' centre in Westminster hall. In addition major improvements to existing facilities are planned including the improvement of access by disabled people, the refurbishment of the Refreshment Department and the installation of the parliamentary data and video network.

  HMSO Privatisation
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the effect of services to hon. and right hon. Members of the proposed privatisation of HMSO; and if he will make a statement. [7480]

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission's views are set out in the letter from the Speaker to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which was published in Hansard on 11 December, columns 455–57. That letter laid down a number of safeguards which the Commission consider necessary to protect the interests of the House in the event of HMSO being privatised. The Commission will continue to take a close interest in the progress of preparatory work for privatisation. In particular we will want to be satisfied that the safeguards are adequately secured by the contract to be drawn up between the House and a privatised Stationery Office.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the risk of legionnaire's disease in the parliamentary estate. [7485]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The water systems throughout the parliamentary estate are regularly tested for the legionnella bacterium as part of routine maintenance work. This work also includes sterilisation of cooling towers and shower heads, and keeping the domestic hot water temperatures above the tolerance of the bacterium. The results of recent routine tests showed slightly raised levels which have been dealt with by pasteurisation and chemical sterilisation. It is also proposed to make minor changes to plumbing in remote areas to help maintain safe water temperatures.

  Refreshment Facilities
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what plans he has to upgrade refreshment facilities for large groups of visitors to the House. [7475]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  On 12 July 1994, the House approved the first report of Session 1992–93 from the 350
  Catering Committee, "Refreshment provision for line of route visitors". One recommendation was that the area currently occupied by the Westminster hall cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, which would provide light refreshments for the public, but that this should only take place once a suitable alternative has been found for the present lunchtime users.

  Although initial discussions between officials have been held regarding the proposed nature of a visitor centre, I do have to advise the hon. Member that some 500 people, mainly staff, have lunch daily in the Westminster hall cafeteria; the other outlets currently available to staff would not be able to accommodate the extra customers if the Westminster hall cafeteria was closed before the opening of the new cafeteria in the phase II parliamentary building, which I understand, will not he until 1999. It is therefore highly unlikely that a visitor centre could be open before then.

  Privileges Committee
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what contact, direct or indirect, he has had with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission in regard to the findings of the Privileges Committee in its first report for the session 1994–95 as they affect the Sunday Times and the Committee's call for further examination by the commission of the complaint made against that newspaper; what developments there have been since the Privileges Committee's findings were published; and if he will make a statement. [8593]

  Mr. Newton
  At his request, I met my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Wakeham, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, on Monday 20 November 1995 to discuss progress on this matter. Lord Wakeham has recently written to me, as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, reporting on the position. I have arranged for copies of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will be in a position to consult on the proposal contained in the Government's policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game" that the Sports Council should be given the status of a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting playing fields. [9684]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are seriously concerned at the loss of playing fields. We attach high priority to ensuring that people have access to a range of high quality sports facilities. There is a clear need to improve consultation between the Sports Council and local planning authorities whenever proposals for the development of playing fields arise. We are, therefore, issuing today, jointly with the Department of the Environment, a consultation paper on the proposal that the Sports Council should become a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting all playing fields, not only those used by schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Energy Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy Council meeting on 20 December 1995. [8692]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council considered several issues and received reports on matters of interest. I represented the United Kingdom. Progress was made in a number of areas. In particular, political agreement was reached on a proposed directive on energy efficiency standards for fridges and freezers, the aim of which is to establish minimum standards and thus help to limited CO2 emissions. The directive provides for a 15 per cent. reduction in electricity consumption for all new models over three years.

  The Council also adopted a common position on the Commission's proposed regulation on the registration of crude oil imports.

  It was not possible to reach a common position on the electricity liberalisation proposal. Ministers agreed however that there had been a convergence of positions during the Spanish presidency and that work should be continued during the Italian presidency with a view to possible agreement early in 1996.

  The Council considered a Commission proposal for the repeal and/or simplification of several EU legislative measures in the energy efficiency, oil and gas sub-sectors. In particular, political agreement was reached on a Commission proposal to simplify regulation 1056/72 on the notification of investments.

  Also, the Council received presentations/reports from the Commission on a number of items. These included a presentation of its energy policy White Paper; a report on gas supply and prospects to 2020; and its proposal for a second SAVE programme, aimed at encouraging best use of energy efficiency technology.

  The presidency gave a progress report on informal contacts with the European Parliament on Energy TENs prior to the convening of the conciliation committee. Progress reports were also given on the energy charter treaty, SYNERGY and on the energy aspects of the Barcelona Euro-Med conference.

  EU Industry Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Industry Council held on 20 December 1995. [8691]

  Mr. Eggar
  The meeting examined further a Commission proposal to authorise the payment of exceptional state aid for Irish Steel under article 95 of the ECSC treaty. This matter was previously discussed by the Council on 7 November 1995, when the Government declined to agree the proposal in view of concerns about possible adverse effects on the United Kingdom steel industry.

  Bilateral discussions between the UK and Ireland immediately prior to the 20 December Council resulted in agreement on a revised aid package subject, at the
  352
  insistence of the UK, to a number of strict conditions. These include, over five years, caps on Irish Steel's overall production, limits on sale of hot rolled products into the EU—under 300kt in the first year—and an undertaking that the company will not, over the same period, extend its current range of finished products. Overall the conditions are stricter than those attached to the previous article 95 decisions of December 1993. The Government believe that these improvements over the original Commission proposal meet the objective of ensuring that jobs in Ireland are not preserved at the expense of jobs in the UK.

  The amended proposals was accepted unanimously by member states. Formal approval will take place at a future Council.

  Ice Cream
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a report from the Director General of Fair Trading in relation to the provision of evidence by Bird's Eye Wall's to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into the supply of ice cream; what advice the director general of Fair Trading has given him in respect of such evidence; when he expects to take further action; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that accurate information is available to the director general. [9053]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received a confidential report from the Director General of Fair Trading on this matter. It is not the practice of the Department to comment publicly on such reports. Any decisions which need to be taken will be announced in due course.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total number of industrial tribunals held in each of the last five years in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (b) the Glasgow area; and in what percentage of cases the appellant was successful. [9036]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total number of cases determined at hearing

  Percentage of successful cases

  1990–91

  England

  9,118

  50

  Wales1

  630

  44

  Scotland

  1,682

  42

  Glasgow

  982

  41

  1991–92

  England

  11,592

  52

  Wales1

  880

  53

  Scotland

  1,382

  41

  Glasgow

  817

  40

  1992–93

  England

  14,827

  53

  Wales1

  1,091

  54

  Scotland

  1,760

  48

  Glasgow

  985

  47

  353

  Total number of cases determined at hearing

  Percentage of successful cases

  1993–94

  England

  19,966

  52

  Wales1

  1,442

  49

  Scotland

  1,888

  47

  Glasgow

  1,082

  45

  1994–952

  England

  18,003

  49

  Wales1

  1,346

  48

  Scotland

  2,400

  41

  Glasgow

  1,277

  43

  1Includes cases determined at hearings in Shrewsbury, some which may have originated in England.

  2Figures are provisional.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what inquiries he has made into the issue by the Export Credits Guarantee Department of financial guarantees to United Kingdom financial institutions in relation to trade with Iraq which may have breached the Government's guidelines on the export of military and related equipment; and what action, if any, has been taken as a result; [7801]

  (2) if he will estimate the amount paid by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to the Midland bank since 1980 in respect of trade with Iraq by (a) Astra Holdings, (b) British Aerospace, (c) Royal Ordnance, (d) Vickers, (e) Racal (f) Plessey and (g) Thorn EMI; what assessment he has made of whether the relevant guarantees related to trade in breach of the Government's guidelines on the export to Iraq of military and related equipment; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement; [7803]

  (3) if he will estimate the amount claimed by United Kingdom clearing banks since 1980 in respect of Export Credits Guarantee Department guarantees given in relation to trade with Iraq; what proportion of this sum he estimates was claimed in relation to trade in breach of the Government's guidelines on the export to Iraq of military and related equipment; and if he will make a statement. [7804]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 January 1996]: The consistency of ECGD support for certain export contracts with Government guidelines on trade for Iraq at the times is a matter which Sir Richard Scott may cover in his forthcoming report, on which I cannot comment at this stage. However, it has always been a condition of ECGD support that exporters obtain the requisite export licences.

  Amounts paid by ECGD to Midland bank since 1980 under guaranteed lines of credits extended to Iraq included sums relating to contracts undertaken by Racal and by Thorn EMI, but not in relation to any of the other companies named. The total principal value of claims paid by ECGD in respect of these contracts was approximately £22 million.

  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose the details of individual contracts without the agreement of the parties concerned.

  The total of claims paid under ECGD guarantees in relation to trade with Iraq was £683 million as at
  354
  31 December 1995. Of this, £578 million was paid to banks under buyer credit and line of credit facilities; the balance having been paid to banks under buyer credit and line of credit facilities; the balance having been paid directly to exporters under short-term or supplier credit facilities. As against the figure of £578 million, recoveries of £72 million have been made, bringing the total outstanding unrecovered claims for buyer credit facilities to £506 million. A breakdown of the amounts claimed as between United Kingdom clearing banks and other banks, or of the amounts held by individual banks for their own account where loans have been syndicated, is not readily available.

  Huw Evans
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 29 December, if he will give his current estimate of the length of time to be taken by the Employment Agency's standards office in Birmingham for its investigation into Allied Medicare Services and the employment of Huw Evans as a temporary auxiliary nurse in south Wales hospitals. [9183]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The investigation is under way, but it is too early to say when it will be completed. I shall write to the hon. Member by the end of the month to let him know progress.

  Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in respect of the simplification of United Kingdom regulations to enforce the EC electromagnetic compatibility directive, particularly regarding the impact of the regulations on smaller firms; and if he will make a statement. [9461]

  Mr. Page
  The electromagnetic compatibility directive 89/336/EEC was implemented by the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations, SI 1992 No. 2372, which came fully into force on 1 January 1996. Under the regulations all apparatus marketed in the United Kingdom, including imports, must satisfy the requirements of the directive and carry CE marking. The main requirements are that apparatus should not cause excessive electromagnetic interference or be unduly affected by it.

  There are three ways of demonstrating compliance: self-certification to the relevant European standard; preparation of a technical file assessed by a competent body; and type examination. Testing is not mandatory except for apparatus designed for the transmission of radiocommunications.

  No representations have been received concerning simplification of the regulations but the Department continues to receive requests for advice on how to comply. The Government have provided extensive advice in the period up to January 1996 and have established regional EMC clubs. Technical telephone helplines, funded by DTI, are also currently available.

  Clothing (Labelling)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that clothes retailed in the United Kingdom which carry "Made in the UK" labels are manufactured in the United Kingdom. [9108]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to supply or offer for sale any goods, including clothing, with a false or misleading indication of their origin.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the buildings constructed for his Department in each year since 1979. [7547]

  Mr. Lang
  The cost of buildings constructed for the DTI are set out in the table. Similar information is not readily available for the functions transferred to the Department under the Machinery of Government changes earlier this financial year.

  Financial Year

  £ million

  1979–80 to 1983–84

  nil

  1984–85

  9

  1985–86

  9

  1986–87

  12.3

  1987–88

  9

  1988–89

  9

  1989–90

  9.1

  1990–91

  12.3

  1991–92

  9.1

  1992–93 to date

  nil

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [9131]

  Mr. Lang
  Central records are not kept of procurements of mobile telephones which are now procured locally. However it is estimated that, excluding next steps agencies, there are currently in the region of 800 mobile telephones in use in my Department which have come from a variety of suppliers.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates and on what matters in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport. [9100]

  Mr. Page
  There have been many contacts between my Department and the Department of Transport concerning the royal commission report since its publication in October 1994, including several discussions at both official and ministerial level.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify any such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7826]

  Mr. Lang
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. I am not aware of any recent replies that have been amended.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many grants representing what total sums and with what average value were awarded under the business start-up scheme in each region of Britain in each year of the scheme's existence. [7583]

  Mr. Paice
  I have been asked to reply.

  The precise information requested is not available. Starts by region are available for 1994–95 and are given in table 1. Total expenditure and number of starts in England for each year of the programme are given in table 2. In 1994–95 the scheme was absorbed with the single regeneration budget.

  Table 1: Business Start-up Scheme: Starts by English Region 1994–95

  Region

  Starts

  South East

  2,393

  London

  3,081

  Eastern

  1,925

  South West

  2,801

  West Midlands

  1,576

  East Midlands

  3,042

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,402

  Merseyside

  1,356

  North West

  3,058

  North East

  1,602

  Table 2: Business Start-up Scheme: Starts and Expenditure in England

  Year

  Starts

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1992–93

  33,600

  62.0

  1993–94

  34,700

  82.0

  1994–95

  24,236

  63.8

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid-for-trade Provision
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 10 companies which have been leading indirect beneficiaries of aid-for-trade provision spending since the scheme's inception; and what percentage of total aid-for-trade provision spending each has attracted. [8236]
  357
  Mr. Hanley
  The 10 companies which have won the most ATP supported business as prime contractors since the scheme's inception in 1978 are:

  Company

  ATP allocation (£ million)

  Percentage of ATP total

  Trafalgazr House (including Davy and John Brown Engineering)

  164.27

  11.91

  GEC

  154.00

  11.17

  Balfour Beatty

  105.85

  7.68

  Rolls Royce (including NEI)

  68.82

  4.99

  Biwater

  61.59

  4.47

  AMEC

  58.70

  4.25

  Foster Wheeler

  53.85

  3.90

  Snamprogetti UK

  47.18

  3.42

  Siemens Plessey

  43.04

  3.12

  Philips UK

  34.11

  2.47

  Total

  791.41

  57.38

  ATP total allocated1

  1,379.21

  —

  1Due to rounding the totals may not balance. (The Balfour Beatty figure includes £24.37 million spend in respect of the Pergau hydro electric project before 1994–95. This project is no longer being financed by the aid and trade provision.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the amount of business retained by the prime contractor as opposed to the amount handled by subcontractors. It should however be noted that the extent of subcontracting is normally considerable.

  General Electric Company
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total value of contracts awarded to GEC by the Overseas Development Administration in each year since 1990. [8237]

  Mr. Hanley
  The only relevant contracts awarded since 1990 are two contracts, one to the value of £450,000 awarded in 1991, and a second worth £494,974 in 1992 to separate companies owned jointly by GEC and Alcatel Alsthom of France.

  The ODA has financed several contracts between GEC or its subsidiary companies and overseas clients. Since 1990, we have supported a number of such contracts, including in 1993 and 1994 grants to finance two power projects in India totalling £81.8 million and in 1995 a grant of £15.516 million for a power project in Indonesia.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the amount of grants to NGOs from the ODA and (b) the amount of UK aid money disbursed through NGOs in the last year for which figures are available. [8946]

  Mr. Hanley
  All expenditure from the ODA to non-governmental organisations, NGOs, is provided on a grant basis. The sum of all grants for 1994–95 made by the Overseas Development Administration to United Kingdom NGOs for work in developing countries was £173,124,136, as detailed in the table. The comparable figure in 1992–93 was £141,791,127. in 1993–94 it was £148,610,155.
  358
  In addition, we made grants to United Kingdom NGOs for work in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union—in 1994–95 amounting to £11,989,655. The comparable figure in 1992–93 was £5,634,899; in 1993–94 it was £9,839,600.

  United Kingdom NGOs also draw substantially on European Community aid programmes to which we contribute.

  The table provides details of all ODA grants in 1994–95.

  1994–95 Direct grants to United Kingdom Non-governmental Organisations 1(excluding Eastern Europe)

  Voluntary Organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 21994–95

  ACORD

  2,282,748

  Action Disability and Development

  137,290

  Action Health 2000

  51,382

  Action Aid

  2,945,706

  Afghan Aid

  1,150,000

  Africa Now

  147,691

  Africa Resource Trust

  100,000

  Africa Soc Int and Com Law

  23,750

  Aro-Asian Jour of Nematology

  180

  Aga Khan Foundation

  978,577

  AHRTAG

  414,697

  AMAR Appeal

  85,000

  AMREF

  398,535

  APTT Trust UK

  7,836

  Association for Better Land Husbandry

  167,684

  Association of Pioneer Rescue Officers

  114,000

  Associated Country Women World

  13,891

  Association of Commonwealth University

  2,490,462

  Bernt Carlsson Trust

  116,000

  Birdlife International

  189,273

  Britain Afghanistan Trust

  54,000

  Britain Nepal Medical Trust

  90,414

  British Direct Aid (UK)

  228,577

  British Executive Service Overseas

  754,699

  British Red Cross Society

  17,690,732

  British Refugee Council

  10,000

  British Society Pop Studies

  3,145

  Business in the Community

  5,000

  Busoga Trust

  98,715

  CAFOD

  7,803,959

  Calcutta Rescue Fund

  1,737

  Calcutta Tercentenary Trust

  10,849

  Cambodia Trust

  79,134

  Canon Collins Education Trust SA

  17,037

  Canterbury Christ Church IPO

  87,039

  CARE

  10,988,910

  Care for the Wild

  50,000

  Catholic Inst International Relations

  1,952,813

  Charities Aid Foundation

  18,366

  Charities Evaluation Services

  19,396

  Childhope

  112,331

  Christian Aid

  7,542,606

  Christian Children's Fund (GB)

  125,754

  Christian Engineers in Development

  24,690

  Christian Outreach

  294,168

  Christians Abroad

  180,747

  Church Missionary Society

  20,902

  Co-op For Development

  176,115

  359

  1994–95 Direct grants to United Kingdom Non-governmental Organisations 1(excluding Eastern Europe)

  Voluntary organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 21994–95

  CODA International Training

  178,960

  Commonwealth Human Ecology

  58,762

  Commonwealth TUC

  113,492

  Concern Universal

  60,777

  Concern Worldwide

  3,319,941

  Conservation Foundation

  9,189

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  44,055

  Cusichaca Project Trust

  23,668

  Durham-Lesotho Link

  20,913

  Earthwatch Europe

  3,091

  Education for Development

  1,180

  Education Partners Overseas

  58,753

  FARM

  516,572

  Feed the Children

  341,145

  Feed the Minds

  23,686

  Find Your Feet

  9,100

  Food for Hungry International

  449,152

  Friends of Urambo and Mwanhala

  8,626

  Friends of ASSEFA

  38,197

  Friends of Conservation

  27,468

  GOAL

  1,291,949

  Gordon Barclay Vietnam Fund

  7,663

  Gurkha Welfare Trust

  296,233

  HALO Trust

  1,912,561

  Harvest Help

  30,439

  Health Aid Moyo

  55,999

  Health Aid-UK

  66,840

  Health Projects Abroad

  49,724

  Health Unlimited

  703,958

  Hedley Roberts Trust

  2,804

  Help International

  98,105

  HelpAge International

  298,148

  Help The Aged

  286,906

  Holy Trinity Church Middlesex

  13,000

  Ideas Aid International UK

  20,000

  Impact Foundation

  25,355

  India Development Group

  85,750

  Institute of Development Studies

  3,171,052

  Institute of Data Processing Management

  471

  Institute for Animal Health

  93,396

  International Year of Shelter

  192,948

  Intermediate Technology Development

  3,809,370

  International Bee Research Association

  22,652

  International Cent Agroforestry

  100,000

  International Childcare Trust

  59,978

  International Children's Trust

  11,619

  International Christian Relief

  54,166

  International Family Health

  42,074

  International Health Exchange

  31,798

  International Refugee Trust

  34,750

  International Rescue Corps

  3,672

  International Extension College

  151,372

  International HIV/AIDS Alliance

  216,400

  INTRAC

  60,429

  IPPF

  9,135,018

  Islamic Relief

  59,946

  Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board

  471,563

  John Innes Institute

  27,075

  Kerala Federation for the Blind

  6,072

  King Mehendra Trust

  78,368

  Kurdish Cultural Society

  10,040

  Lasallian Projects

  7,504

  Legal Assistance Trust

  60,000

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  55,012

  360

  1994–95 Direct grants to United Kingdom Non-governmental Organisations 1(excluding Eastern Europe)

  Voluntary organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 21994–95

  Leprosy Mission

  9,988

  Leprosy Mission (Scotland)

  23,760

  Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

  1,794,324

  Living Earth

  169,595

  Marie Stopes International

  2,018,930

  Marlborough Brandt Group

  72

  Medecins Sans Frontieres

  1,382,823

  Medical Aid for Iraq

  280,000

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  340,908

  Medical Emergency Relief International

  1,253,902

  Medical Research Council

  1,812,906

  Methodist Church Overseas

  2,264

  Mines Advisory Group

  1,038,944

  Money for Madagascar

  10,625

  Nairobi Hospice Charitable Trust

  35,821

  National Children's Homes

  9,400

  New Economics Foundation

  15,685

  New Hope Rural Community Trust

  2,956

  Ockenden Venture

  150,341

  One World Action

  80,225

  One World Broadcasting Trust

  44,000

  Opportunity Trust

  78,453

  Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

  2,040,608

  OXFAM

  13,838,676

  Pattaya Orphanage Trust

  18,110

  Plan International

  1,616,591

  Plunkett Foundation

  64,541

  Population Concern

  543,016

  Project Ploughshare

  39,999

  Project Rehab Malawi

  1,741

  Prospect Burma

  11,400

  Red R

  56,950

  Refugee Council

  8,892

  Richmond Fellowship International

  6,640

  Rio Maza

  14,742

  RNIB

  315

  Royal Agricultural Society

  4,537

  Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

  44,739

  Royal Commonwealth Society

  186,576

  Ryder Cheshire Mission

  82,000

  South Africa Townships Health Fund

  66,000

  Salvation Army

  82,010

  Save The Children Fund

  20,529,172

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

  158,401

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  60,685

  Scottish Development Education Centre

  7,250

  Scottish Education Action for Development

  30,002

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  9,954

  Send A Cow

  29,300

  Sid-Vale Africa Link

  1,415

  Silsoe College

  15,298

  Silsoe Research Institute

  593,185

  Skillshare Africa

  1,584,120

  SOS Sahel International

  777,156

  Southeast Asian Outreach

  84,959

  TACADE

  23,482

  Tear Fund

  857,474

  Thomson Foundation

  28,181

  Tools for Self Reliance

  14,790

  Traidcraft Exchange

  451,504

  Trax Programme Support

  27,579

  361

  1994–95 Direct grants to United Kingdom Non-governmental Organisations 1(excluding Eastern Europe)

  Voluntary organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 21994–95

  Tropical Health and Education Trust

  64,949

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  104,703

  UK Committee for UNICEF

  2,910,287

  UK Found for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  225,963

  UKJAID

  2,475

  United Nations Association Int Service

  909,885

  University of Warwick

  27,104

  VetAid

  98,480

  Village Service Trust

  10,870

  Vision Aid Overseas

  29,737

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  18,208,167

  War on Want

  71,906

  WaterAid

  902,342

  Wells for India

  21,592

  Womenkind

  113,340

  World Conservation Monitoring

  67,163

  World Conservation Union

  37,563

  World University Service

  765,931

  World Vision of Britain

  2,371,522

  World Wildlife Fund

  2,100,774

  Y-Care International

  415,318

  YES International

  91,470

  You and Me

  32,700

  Youth With A Mission

  17,140

  Zimbabwe Trust

  61,600

  Zoological Society of London

  32,000

  Totals

  173,124,136

  1Organisations registered as a charity with the Charity Commissioners in England or the Inland Revenue in Scotland.

  2This represents expenditure channelled through NGOs for their own programmes and for development activities and emergency relief work undertaken on behalf of the Overseas Development Administration. It includes some research work where this is implemented by institutions which are within the definition of NGO given above.

  1994–95 Direct payments to non-governmental organisations for work in eastern Europe

  Voluntary organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 1994–95

  ADRA

  27,700

  Aga Khan Foundation

  1,190,000

  BEARR Trust

  9,780

  Bosnia Aid Comm of Oxford

  50,000

  Brit Helsinki Human Rights Group

  1,557

  British Institute International and Comparative Law

  191,637

  British Association of Central Eastern Europe

  4,167

  British Executive Service

  397,558

  British Hungarian Association

  20,000

  British Red Cross Society

  1,825,270

  CARE

  190,180

  Charities Aid Foundation

  808,086

  Charities Evaluation Services

  15,823

  Christian Aid

  75,000

  Elam Ministries

  262,000

  Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

  2,200

  Feed the Children

  718,430

  Help International

  70,000

  Institute of Development Studies

  530

  362

  1994–95 Direct payments to non-governmental organisations for work in eastern Europe

  Voluntary organisation

  Amount of direct grant awarded in financial year 1994–95

  Inter Action

  45,000

  International Waterfowl and Wetland Res

  10,724

  IPPF

  59,861

  Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board

  60,207

  Marie Stopes International

  567,700

  Medecins Sans Frontieres

  236,511

  Medical Emergency Relief International

  307,792

  National Institute Agricultural Botany

  143,265

  National Trust

  1,014

  Ockenden Venture

  34,000

  OXFAM

  1,102,500

  Plunkett Foundation

  367,812

  Prison Reform International

  9,453

  Royal Agricultural College

  26,435

  Russian European Trust

  8,656

  Save The Children Fund

  362,296

  Scottish Agricultural College

  301,627

  Scottish Books for Romania

  3,000

  Scottish European Aid

  213,700

  Scottish Vocational Education Council

  23,454

  Silsoe Research Institute

  35,811

  Task Force Albania

  25,200

  Tear Fund

  120,000

  Thomson Foundation

  311,958

  UK Committee for UNICEF

  1,100,000

  University of Warwick

  1,051

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  283,000

  Warchild

  97,000

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  16,729

  World Conservation Monitoring

  33,072

  World Vision of Britain

  200,000

  World Wildlife Fund

  2,600

  YES International

  18,309

  Totals

  11,989,655

  Development Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much development aid is spent on(a) a multilateral basis and (b) a bilateral basis; and what are the most recent projections for the allocation between bilateral and multilateral between 1995–96 and 1998–99. [9102]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 10 January,Official Report column 223–24.

  Multilateral Institutions
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those multilateral institutions with which Her Majesty's Government are in financial arrears. [8947]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK is not in financial arrears to any of the multilateral development institutions of which it is a member.

  Bilateral Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of bilateral aid has been fully tied to the purchase of goods and services from the United Kingdom since 1990–91. [8872]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 751.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements are made of NGOs to evaluate their programmes when receiving United Kingdom official aid. [8870]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Overseas Development Administration's joint funding scheme, JFS, is the principal channel of United Kingdom official aid for the development activities of UK NGOs.

  NGOs in receipt of JFS support are required to undertake a degree of evaluation on all of their programmes. This takes the form of annual reports of progress, often supplemented by separate studies to evaluate the impact of their work.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to increase assistance to(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi. [9180]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since October 1993, Britain has committed £93 million and £2.6 million in bilateral emergency and rehabilitation assistance to Rwanda, including Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries, and Burundi respectively. Future aid levels will reflect need, the capacity of NGOs and UN agencies to deliver assistance to those most at risk, and the absorptive capacity of the relevant Governments.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Preparation of Public Bills
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the use of Parliamentary Counsel and private draftsmen and women in the preparation of Public Bills. [7483]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government and the House are, in my view, well served by Parliamentary Counsel in the preparation of legislation. As an experiment, to test the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of an alternative approach, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has employed private sector lawyers to draft parts of the Finance Bill currently before the House.

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the length and format of Prime Minister's Question Time. [7486]

  Mr. Newton
  The Procedure Committee has produced a report on Prime Minister's questions which my right hon. Friend and I are studying.

  Railtrack Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he intends to bring forward proposals for legislation about the privatisation of Railtrack. [7487]

  Mr. Newton
  No further legislation is needed to complete the privatisation of Railtrack.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to examine the on-going implications of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [7488]

  Mr. Newton
  As I told the hon. Gentleman in my replies of 23 October 1995 and 27 November 1995, there are no plans to do so.

  Written Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve the procedure for obtaining answers to written parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement. [7489]

  Mr. Newton
  If the hon. Gentleman has some particular proposal to make, perhaps he could let me know.

  Parliamentary Procedures
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a procedure whereby hon. Members may briefly raise matters of interest without notice. [7490]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

ENVIRONMENT

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official hospitality by the Property Services Agency in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [9168]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  Expenditure in 1993–94 (excluding teas and coffees): £50,380.45

  Expenditure in 1994–95 (excluding teas and coffees): £2,457.10

  Estimated expenditure in 1995–96 (excluding teas and coffees): £117.51

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 122, if he will make a statement on the number of inquiries generated for each of the 14 energy efficiency products. [9128]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As assessment will he carried out following the voucher book scheme's conclusion on 31 March.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were insulated under the home energy efficiency scheme in each of the past
  365
  five years; and what is his current estimate for (a) the present financial year and (b) 1996–97. [9529]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The home energy efficiency scheme began in January 1991. The total numbers of grants paid in Great Britain in each year since the scheme began, and estimated for the present financial year, are as follows:

  Year

  Great Britain

  1990–91

  7,582

  1991–921

  167,849

  1992–93

  204,130

  1993–94

  270,148

  1994–95

  449,902

  1995–96

  2600,000

  1From 1 January 1991.

  2Estimate.

  The allocation of funds for 1996–97 will enable at least 400,000 grants to be paid at the present mean value. However, additional resources will be available from contributions paid by eligible householders who are not on benefit after 1 April 1996. This means that the average job will cost less in grant because of the contribution, and considerably more than 400,000 jobs should be carried out.

  Rents
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by tenants of(a) private landlords and (b) local councils; and what were the equivalent figures in each category for 1978–79 in actual and real terms. [8529]

  Mr. Curry
  The figures are given in the table:

  Average rents in England, 1978–79 and 1994–95

  Year

  Local authority tenants £ a week

  Private tenants £ a week

  1994–95 (actual)

  135.79

  269.00

  1978–79 (actual)

  35.90

  46.70

  1978–79

  (1994–95 prices)

  17.21

  19.50

  Source:

  1Housing Subsidy Claim Form.

  2Family Expenditure Survey.

  3CIPFA survey of local authority rents.

  41978 Private Renters Survey.

  The 1978–79 estimates have been adjusted to 1994–95 prices using the GDP market prices deflator.

  Estimates from the family expenditure survey and the 1978 private renters survey are subject to sampling variability.

  Council Tax Valuation Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax valuation banding have been received; and what percentages of these appeals have been(a) resolved, (b) withdrawn or (c) are still outstanding (i) nationally and (ii) by valuation office in the London region. [8973]
  366
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Valuation Office agency had received 1,046,969 valid handing proposals in England by 30 November 1995, of which 93.2 per cent. had been resolved, including 22.1 per cent. withdrawn, leaving 6.8 per cent. outstanding. Details for VOA London region offices are:

  VOA local office

  Number resolved

  Percentage resolved

  Percentage withdrawn

  Percentage outstanding

  Barking

  5,079

  90.9

  37.0

  9.1

  Bromley

  20,008

  93.8

  25.2

  6.2

  Camden

  8,654

  94.0

  28.8

  6.0

  City

  235

  97.0

  40.0

  3.0

  Ealing

  10,724

  93.3

  25.5

  6.7

  Enfield

  22,659

  90.8

  36.3

  9.2

  Greenwich

  13,044

  94.3

  28.3

  5.7

  Harrow

  11,348

  91.4

  26.0

  8.6

  Islington

  10,173

  93.6

  25.1

  6.4

  Kensington

  17,444

  97.5

  23.8

  2.5

  Lambeth

  15,202

  95.3

  29.1

  4.7

  Redbridge

  7,562

  89.4

  34.0

  10.6

  Tower Hamlets

  4,594

  89.6

  26.3

  10.4

  Westminister

  9,481

  98.6

  21.8

  1.4

  Wimbledon

  14,374

  96.9

  25.8

  3.1

  Admiralty Arch
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department has given to the future of Admiralty arch; which estate agent was employed to consider the sale of Admiralty arch; which independent advisers were involved in this decision; and if he will make a statement. [8992]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Prior to, and since the relocation from the majority of the building by the Ministry of Defence, my Department has actively been canvassing use by other Departments and agencies. No estate agents have been employed to consider the sale of Admiralty arch but consultants, Knight Frank, have been commissioned to advise on the possible future uses of the property, including any private finance initiative opportunities. Their report is awaited.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the Non-domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989 No. 2261) so that the benefit of the rate reduction can only be claimed by a landlord; and if he will make a statement. [9519]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Liability for rates attaches to the beneficial occupier of the hereditament; or if it is empty, whoever is entitled to occupy it. Any benefit arising from empty property relief should therefore go to the same person who is liable for the rates, whether it be the owner, landlord, lessee or tenant.

  We have no plans to change this.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he will make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996, or 1997 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [9667]
  367
  Mr. Curry
  On 20 October I invited authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1997 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1996–97. On the basis,inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts to allocate towards such costs in 1996–97. I have given priority to authorities to be reorganised in 1996. The majority of authorities to be reorganised in 1997 asked for allocations in respect of redundancy to be deferred until the mid-year review in October 1996 and the allocations listed, for those authorities, are not intended to cover redundancy costs.

  The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £ thousand rounded

  Authority

  1996–97

  Cumulative total 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97

  1995 Reorganisation

  Isle of Wight Council

  500

  4,437

  1996 Reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  2,150

  5,898

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  3,400

  6,037

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  2,750

  5,104

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  3,250

  6,678

  North West Somerset Council

  3,000

  6,250

  South Gloucestershire Council

  3,500

  5,300

  North Lincolnshire Council

  3,500

  5,300

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  4,000

  5,900

  North Yorkshire County Council

  400

  1,400

  Selby District Council

  100

  610

  1997 Reorganisations

  Bedfordshire County Council

  300

  Luton Borough Council

  3,250

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  2,500

  Derbyshire County Council

  300

  Derby City Council

  2,500

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  2,500

  Poole Borough Council

  2,500

  Durham County Council

  300

  Darlington Borough Council

  2,500

  East Sussex County Council

  300

  Brighton Borough Council

  350

  Hove Borough Council

  350

  Hampshire County Council

  300

  Portsmouth City Council

  2,500

  Southampton City Council

  2,500

  Staffordshire County Council

  300

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  2,500

  Wiltshire County Council

  100

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  2,500

  Buckinghamshire and Dorset county councils did not submit bids. The councils of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull City, Bristol City, Bath and North-east Somerset and York district are being asked to reconsider whether the reorganisations in their area could be implemented more economically. If they submit revised bids by the end of January, they will be considered and allocations made during February.
  368
  I shall make a further announcement about allocations to authorities for which reorganisation orders have not yet been made.

  Housing Association Tenants
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of the consultation exercise on the Government's proposals in respect of right-to-buy and purchase grants for tenants of housing associations and independent social landlords. [9698]

  Mr. Curry
  Following the publication of the housing White Paper, "Our Future Homes", over 3,000 copies of the consultation paper on purchase grants for housing association tenants were sent out to interested parties, and 341 responses have been received.

  I have carefully considered the views of many housing associations that future HAG-funded properties should not be subject to the new right to buy. But the Government continue to believe that tenants ought to have this new right, and provision for this will appear in the forthcoming Housing Bill.

  I have, however, decided to make a number of changes to the schemes as originally proposed in the light of the responses received. These changes are:
  the exemption from the schemes of properties in all rural communities of less than 3,000 population, because of the particular difficulties in providing replacement properties;
  replacement properties need not be new-build, but could be either rehabilitated existing stock or bought on the open market if this represents the best value for money;
  associations will be allowed to offer tenants alternative properties from their stock, for which purchase grant will be available;
  Housing Association grant repayment may be waived on all receipts from sales to tenants on condition that they go into the ring-fenced fund to provide replacement properties;
  Large-scale voluntary transfer associations will be treated in the same way as other associations—that is they will not have to bear the burden of grant themselves, as originally proposed;
  in the statutory scheme, associations—and other independent social landlords—will not be required to sell properties where the outstanding private sector debt is greater than the market value;
  in the voluntary scheme, participating associations will not be required to sell where:
  the property was built entirely by private donation or funds;
  properties are subject to restrictive legal covenants or agreements;
  the costs of acquisition and improvement (but not repair), or the outstanding private loan debt on the property, are greater than the market value.

  I have deposited a list of responses to the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses, and copies of individual responses are available through them.

  Red Lion Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what destination the three container loads of Red Lion fireworks were re-exported on 23 September, referred to in his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 602. [8923]
  369
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Red Lion fireworks were re-exported on 23 September to Dublin.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the performance and effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive regarding the import of dangerous fireworks following the case of Kanash Ltd. and Red Lion. [8922]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I consider that the Health and Safety Executive took appropriate enforcement action: Kanash complied fully with all the prohibitions placed upon it, and HSE ensured, subsequently, that all the recalled Red Lion brand fireworks were destroyed.

  Inner-city Shops
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to zero-rate inner-city shops; [8590]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to select Hillfields in Coventry as a pilot area for zero-rating. [8595]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have no plans to zero rate inner-city shops.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many vacant shops there are in inner-city areas in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Coventry. [8592]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We do not hold such information for England centrally.

  As part of our advice on planning town centres and retail developments in planning policy and guidance note No. 6—PPG6—we advise local authorities to monitor vacant properties in their town centres. I understand that Coventry city council will shortly be publishing information about vacant shops in its unitary development plan.

  The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from organisations concerned with the blighting of inner-city areas and shopping centres. [8591]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We occasionally receive correspondence about blight. Most of my correspondence on shopping centres relates to the damaging effects on them of out-of-centre and out-of-town shopping developments.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the difficulties of letting vacant shops in inner-city areas. [8594]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. This is primarily the responsibility of local regeneration partnerships, including local authorities.
  370
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many vacant shops have been deliberately damaged to avoid paying the business rate levy in the last two years. [8596]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available.

  Shops (Business Rates)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to vary the business rate levy to reflect the ability of shop-owners to pay the business rate; [8597]

  (2) what plans he has to change the business rate levy on vacant shops in inner-city areas. [8589]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates and on what matters, in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport. [9093]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There have been frequent contacts between my Department and the Department of Transport about the report since its publication in October 1994, including discussions at both ministerial and official levels.

  Green Ministers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the minutes of the meetings of the Green Ministers; [8672]

  (2) when the Green Ministers last met; who attended; and what issues were discussed; [8673]

  (3) if he will publish a list of the contacts of green officials for each Government Department; [8674]

  (4) if he will publish a regular six-monthly list of environmental appraisals by Government Departments. [8675]

  Mr. Clappison
  Green Ministers last met on 6 July 1995 and discussion included progress on priorities and targets in the 1995 "This Common Inheritance" annual report and possibilities for the 1996 report, indicators of sustainable development, quality in town and country and green housekeeping activities. Almost all Green Ministers attended or were represented at that meeting. A further meeting scheduled for 2 November had to be postponed and will now take place on 29 January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss then with colleagues whether minutes of meetings and a list of official contacts should be published.

  The Government are committed to reporting further on the use of environmental appraisal in Government policy, but we have already published "Environmental Appraisal in Government Departments". a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce new measures to assist local authorities to tackle the maintenance problems of the housing stock. [9476]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Local authorities have very substantial resources available to maintain their housing stock and they should ensure that they use this money effectively. About £2,320 million per year is being spent on the repair and maintenance of local authority housing, which in real terms is 86 per cent. more per dwelling than 16 years ago.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parole
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of prisoners is currently notified of their parole decision after their parole eligibility date in respect of each prison; [7007]

  (2) what plans he has to increase resources to (a) eliminate delays and (b) reduce the backlog of parole eligibility cases; [7009]

  (3) what assessment he has made of (a) the cost and (b) the impact on prisoner morale of notifying prisoners of parole eligibility after their parole eligibility date. [7008]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Although parole delays cause an increase in the total number of prisoners in custody at any one time, the marginal cost for each establishment is low.

  I do not think parole delays are acceptable. They are unfair to prisoners and an inefficient use of resources. I have asked officials to take steps to reduce the delays. The measures taken include: issuing an instruction to governors stressing the importance of completing parole dossiers on time and of avoiding the transfer of prisoners just before parole board interviews; giving the parole board extra temporary staff, and securing the appointment of sufficient parole board members to undertake interviews and panelling works.

  Provisional figures for 1995 show that, for those establishments holding the majority of prisoners eligible for parole, the percentages of prisoners who received their parole decisions after their parole eligibility date, or its anniversary, are given in the table.

  Prison

  Percentage of prisoners receiving late parole notifications

  Acklington

  57

  Albany

  79

  Ashwell

  70

  Askham Grange

  58

  Aylesbury

  79

  Belmarsh

  79

  Birmingham

  79

  Blantyre House

  84

  Blundeston

  67

  Bristol

  55

  372

  Prison

  Percentage of prisoners receiving late parole notifications

  Brockhill

  82

  Buckley Hall

  76

  Bullingdon

  82

  Camp Hill

  72

  Canterbury

  89

  Castington

  38

  Channings Wood

  82

  Coldingley

  78

  Dartmoor

  81

  Deerbolt

  73

  Dover

  64

  Downview

  77

  Durham

  62

  East Sutton Park

  71

  Elmley

  78

  Erlestoke

  86

  Everthorpe

  86

  Featherstone

  81

  Ford

  71

  Frankland

  46

  Full Sutton

  55

  Garth

  72

  Glen Parva

  93

  Grendon

  68

  Haverigg

  69

  Hewell Grange

  93

  Highdown

  77

  Highpoint

  74

  Hollesley Bay

  86

  Holme House

  53

  Huntercombe

  70

  Kirkham

  86

  Kirklevington

  65

  Lancaster

  94

  Latchmere House

  83

  Leeds

  96

  Leyhill

  89

  Lindholm

  71

  Liverpool

  80

  Littlehey

  80

  Long Lartin

  82

  Maidstone

  77

  Manchester

  73

  Moorland

  69

  The Mount

  92

  North Sea Camp

  82

  Nottingham

  82

  Parkhurst

  76

  Pentonville

  100

  Portland

  91

  Ranby

  77

  Risley

  86

  Rochester

  76

  Shepton Mallet

  69

  Stafford

  87

  Standford Hill

  84

  Stocken

  85

  Styal

  77

  Sudbury

  85

  Swaleside

  56

  Swinfen Hall

  88

  Usk

  79

  The Verne

  69

  Wakefield

  89

  Wandsworth

  76

  Wayland

  78

  Wealstun

  68

  Whatton

  87

  Whitemoor

  81

  Wymott

  88

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will receive a reply to his letter of 24 November regarding Alan and Michael Guy, Ref. 2235/95. [9062]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My private secretary replied to the hon. Member's letter on 8 January. The allegations that Alan and Michael Guy were wrongfully convicted are currently being reviewed and I hope to be able to send the hon. Member a substantive reply to his letters about this case very soon.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the time taken to investigate each alleged miscarriage of justice considered by his Department in the last three years; and which of these were referred to the Court of Appeal; [7783]

  (2) how many cases were referred to the Court of Appeal following investigation by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [7782]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The number of cases referred in recent years to the Court of Appeal is given in the table:

  References to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction 1988–94

  Year

  Cases

  Defendants

  1988

  3

  6

  1989

  7

  20

  1990

  10

  12

  1991

  8

  11

  1992

  8

  9

  1993

  8

  9

  1994

  9

  12

  1995

  18

  20

  Detailed information about the time taken to consider individual cases is not available. During the past three years, it has taken, on average, about two months to consider a case, but the time taken varies considerably according to the extent and nature of inquiries which may need to be made. At the beginning of December 1995, there were 50 cases which had been under consideration for more than 12 months.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led to adjudication in respect of punishment of prisoners at Doncaster prison being carried out by Home Office controllers; and what assessment he has made of the effect on discipline at the prison. [8055]

  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 A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Question about adjudications at Doncaster prison being carried out by Controllers.
  374
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 specifically prevents Directors of contracted-out prisons from carrying out adjudications. This function is instead carried out by Controllers, in accordance with section 85(3) of the Act. To change this provision would require legislation to amend the Act.
  The power to adjudicate on prisoners is quasi-judicial and can, in some instances, mean detaining them in custody for longer as a consequence of a disciplinary award. In passing the 1991 Act Parliament has taken the view that only members of the judiciary and a limited number of state servants should have the power to take away a person's liberty.
  The Chief Inspector of Prisons also considered this matter during his inspection of other contracted-out prisons, at Wolds and Blakenhurst. He felt that the current arrangements offered the best safeguards for prisoners at present.
  There is no indication that discipline within the prison has been affected in any way by adjudications being carried out by the Controller.

  Temporary Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what directions have been issued to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service as to the title he should append to his signature; and if he will make a statement. [8050]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such directions have been issued.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department for in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8041]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of mobile telephones supplied to my Department in the last three years was 180 in 1993, 209 in 1994 and 483 in 1995, from four, four, and eight suppliers respectively. In the previous five years, 829 mobile telephones were procured using three suppliers. The figures are approximate because they may not include some mobile telephones supplied to areas of my Department with devolved responsibility for the provision of telecommunications. More precise details would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures of performance will be included in the job description of the Director General of the Prison Service; and what(a) salary and (b) other emoluments their achievement will bring. [8128]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 5 December,Official Report, column 204.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the powers in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 have been used since they became available; and if he will publish information in respect of each of the police forces in England and Wales. [8219]
  375
  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are not yet available. Statistics on the use of these powers will be published later this year and thereafter on an annual basis.

  Immigration Service (Pay)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for how long performance-related pay has been available to(a) executive officers, (b) higher executive officers and (c) other officials within the immigration service; and if he will make a statement; [8162]

  (2) what criteria are used to judge the eligibility for performance-related pay of (a) executive officers, (b) higher executive officers and (c) other officials within the immigration service, in terms of (i) cash and (ii) proportion of overall salary; and if he will make a statement; [8163]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what mechanisms exist to provide performance-related pay to(a) executive officers, (b) higher executive officers and (c) other officials within the immigration service; [8164]

  (2) what is the upper limit of performance-related pay available to (a) executive officers, (b) higher executive officers and (c) other officials within the immigration service, in terms of (i) cash, and (ii) proportion of overall salary; [8165]

  (3) when changes were last introduced to the system of provision of performance-related pay to (a) executive officers, (b) higher executive officers and (c) other officials within the immigration services; and what those changes were. [8166]

  Mr. Howard
  Arrangements for performance-related pay for executive grades, including immigration service staff, have been in place since April 1989 following negotiations between HM Treasury and the national unions. It is awarded for different levels of performance, assessed on the basis of markings in annual individual appraisal reports. There are currently three levels of reward for individuals, depending on whether their performance is judged to be fully satisfactory, significantly above requirements, or outstanding. The amount varies according to the overall performance marking attained and the point reached on the pay band. Lump sum non-consolidated payments are made to those on the maximum of their pay band.

  Structural changes to the performance pay system were last made, across the whole of the civil service, in 1992. The previous mixed incremental/performance pay system was replaced by one in which pay is much more clearly performance related.

  The arrangements in the Home Office are currently undergoing a major review, in the light of the impending delegation of pay responsibility from the Treasury.

  Deportations (Algeria)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made in respect of the deportation of Hocine Dib to Algeria; and if he will make a statement. [8244]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mr. Dib is an illegal entrant, rather than a person who is being dealt with under deportation powers. His case is being reviewed in the light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal to grant him leave to move for a judicial review.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerians were deported from the United Kingdom in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8243]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Algerian nationals removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process1

  Year

  Number of persons

  1993

  65

  1994

  29

  19952

  313

  1Including "voluntary" departures after deportation action had been initiated but excluding illegal entrants removed.

  2January to September.

  3Provisional figure.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1982 the number of children or minors born abroad and having as a parent a British citizen whom he or his predecessors have(a) registered or (b) refused to register as British citizens under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. [8245]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Records of the nationality of the parents of minors who apply for British citizenship or the number of applications under section 3(1) which are refused are not kept. The number of applications granted where the applicant was born abroad is as follows:

  1983: 2,033

  1984: 8,462

  1985: 10,145

  1986: 8,527

  1987: 8,533

  1988: 6,060

  1989: 10,797

  1990: 8,588

  1991: 9,471

  1992: 7,800

  1993: 7,737

  1994: 7,232

  1995: 6,610

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates and on what matters in connection with the 18th report of the Royal
  377
  Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport; and if he will give further details of the dates and subjects of those representations. [9166]

  Mr. Howard
  I have made no representations to the Secretary of State for Transport on the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures for the number of asylum applicants in 1995 residing in Wales at the time of application, the figures for the success and failure of these applications, the number still to be determined and the number of appeals. [9078]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the places of residence of people currently seeking asylum is not held centrally.

  Airline Passengers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Data Protection Act 1984 in order to permit the staff of airlines operating in the United Kingdom to give out information concerning passengers flying into or out of the United Kingdom, to next of kin who require confirmation or otherwise that a person has travelled with that airline. [9387]

  Mr. Sackville
  No amendment to the Data Protection Act is necessary. The Act permits disclosure of data to any category of person described as a potential recipient in the relevant entry in the data protection register. Whether an airline may disclose data to next of kin therefore depends on the terms in which it was registered. Only the airline can decide, in cases where disclosure is permissible, whether it would be appropriate to disclose in any given situation.

  European Police Office
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the text of the convention concerning the establiment of a European police office, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, Cm 3050, was presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government; what notification of the terms of the convention was given to Select Committees of either House; and when he expects to lay the convention before Parliament for ratification. [8255]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer II January 1996]: The Europol convention was published, and laid before Parliament, on 8 December 1995.

  An explanatory note on the then draft convention was submitted on 22 February 1994. Supplementary explanatory notes, with revised drafts of the convention, were provided on 17 November 1994 and 31 May 1995. The final text of the convention, together with an accompanying explanatory note, was forwarded on 28 July last year.

  We expect to ratify the convention in the near future.

WALES

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify any such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7829]

  Mr. Hague
  For Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments, parliamentary questions are passed to the chief executive for reply when the matter is one delegated to him under the agency's framework document. Ministers see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. No letters were amended by Ministers in 1994–95.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received to date regarding the proposed nursery voucher scheme; how many of these representations voiced support for the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8059]

  Mr. Richards
  Some 1,100 separate representations have been received to date, including some petitions and a large number of printed pro-forma letters organised by some primary schools. There has been general support for the Government's objective of making nursery education available for all four-year-olds, although no declared support amongst the representations for the proposed voucher scheme as the most appropriate means to achieve that objective. Many of the representations have clearly been generated by a misunderstanding of some basic elements of the scheme and the greater choice it will give parents in the type of provision they can have for their children, and by an unsubstantiated concern that it will inevitably reduce the current level of maintained sector provision. If local education authorities provide what parents want, there is nothing in the proposed voucher scheme to threaten their current levels of provision

  Urban Development Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to clause 3.4 of the urban development guidelines of April 1992, if he will place in the Library a copy of the criteria for selection and forms of partnership for each of the Welsh Development Agency's joint ventures with local authorities as contained in the agency's urban development programme. [8221]

  Mr. Hague
  Paragraph 3.4 of the April 1992 guidelines required the WDA, in its programme submissions, to describe the criteria it used to select and prioritise the locations in which it would undertake urban development programme activities, and to describe the forms of partnership in terms of where, and with whom, the agency would work with other organisations to implement the programme.
  379
  Approved programmes covering 1992–93 and 1993–94, including broad criteria, details of locations and partnership arrangements, are summarised in publications by the agency, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the estimated amount of financial support received by the agricultural industry from(a) the European Union, (b) the United Kingdom Government

  Financial support received by the agricultural industry in Wales

  Constant prices (1990–91=100) £ million (per cent. of total)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  CAP expenditure

  58 (52)

  85 (57)

  99 (64)

  146 (77)

  156 (73)

  Domestic expenditure

  54 (48)

  63 (43)

  55 (36)

  44 (2)

  57 (27)

  Total

  112 (100)

  148 (100)

  154 (100)

  190 (100)

  213 (100)

  1. Expenditure on domestic schemes include an element which is subsequently refunded by the EU. However, as refunds do not necessarily take place in the year in which the expenditure is incurred the annual figures are shown gross of refunds.

  2. Expenditure figures for Wales are only available in respect of direct support. The figures therefore exclude variable premium payments and intervention support for which separate Welsh figures are unavailable. The variable premium scheme ended in January 1992 and intervention support has been reduced as a result of the 1992 CAP reforms. Thus in the early years of the series, total expenditure is understated and the proportion represented by domestic support expenditure is overstated.

  Mostyn Docks
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce the outcome of the public inquiry relating to the expansion of Mostyn docks, Clwyd. [8579]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The application is being dealt with jointly by the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Transport. The inquiry dealt with a number of complex issues which are still under consideration and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is for each police authority in Wales the proposed standard spending assessment for 1996–97 and the standard spending assessment set for 1995–96 and each of the previous five years. [8577]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 November provisional standard spending assessment for 1996–97 for police authorities in Wales as shown as follows. The figures reflect changes in police authority boundaries from 1 April 1996.

  Provisional SSA 1996–97

  £ million

  Dyfed-Powys

  24.3

  Gwent

  31.4

  North Wales

  34.7

  South Wales

  75.8

  The SSAs for police authorities for 1995–;96 are as follows:
  380
  and (c) in total in each year since 1990 at constant prices indicating each figure as a percentage of the corresponding total. [8088]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of financial support for agriculture in Wales are published in figure 2.01 of the Welsh Office departmental report and are broken down between Common agricultural policy commodity and domestic agricultural support.

  These figures, together with their respective shares of the total, are shown in the table in constant 1990 prices for the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  SSA 1995–96

  £ million

  Dyfed-Powys

  23.4

  Gwent

  25.3

  North Wales

  33.3

  South Wales

  77.7

  Prior to 1995–96, there were no SSAs for police authorities in Wales. County council SSAs included provision for the police.

  Child Abuse
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Miss Nicola Davies QC, in her examination of papers relating to child abuse in north Wales, asked for sight of any papers held by(a) the North Wales police and (b) the Crown Prosecution Service. [9203]

  Mr. Richards
  All of the agencies that were asked by the examining team to provide access to their papers did so. These were the North Wales police, and the county councils of Gwynedd and Clwyd.

  Schools (Selection)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools in Wales which select pupils, giving the percentage selected in each school, and the criteria and procedures under which selection by each school is made. [9479]

  Mr. Richards
  In the maintained sector, admission arrangements, including the criteria by which decisions are to be made if a school is oversubscribed, must be published annually in the school's prospectus. I am not aware of any grant-maintained school that selects pupils on the basis of ability or aptitude. Information about local education authority maintained schools is not held centrally.

  Housing Associations
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the results of the Welsh consultation exercise undertaken on the Government's proposals for purchase grants for tenants of housing associations. [9720]

  Mr. Hague
  Following the publication of the housing White Paper "Our Future Homes", more than 160 copies of the consultation paper on purchase grants for housing association tenants were sent out to interested parties, and 28 responses were received.

  I have also taken into consideration responses received to my consultation on the rural White Paper where these referred to the purchase grant.

  I have carefully considered the views of many housing associations that future housing association grant-funded properties should not be subject to the new right to buy, but the Government continue to believe that tenants ought to have this new right, and provision for this will appear in the forthcoming Housing Bill.

  I have, however, decided to make a number of changes to the scheme as originally proposed in the light of the responses received. These changes are: the exemption from the scheme of properties in certain rural areas, on which I propose to consult in due course; replacement properties need not be new build, but could be either rehabilitated or bought on the open market if this represents better value for money; in the statutory scheme, associations and other independent social landlords will not he required to sell properties where the outstanding private sector debt is greater than the market value; associations will be allowed to offer tenants other properties from their stock for which purchase grant will be available; housing association grant repayment may be waived on all receipts from sales to tenants on condition that they go into a ring-fenced fund to provide replacement properties; any future large scale voluntary transfer associations will be treated in the same way as other associations—they will not have to bear the burden of grant themselves, as originally proposed; in the voluntary scheme, participating associations will not be required to sell where the property was built entirely by private donation or funds, where properties are subject to restrictive legal covenants or agreements or where the costs of acquisition and improvement, but not repair, or the outstanding private loan debt on the property, are greater than the market value.

  I have deposited a list of responses to the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses, and copies of individual responses are available through them.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to paragraph 3.8 of "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94," published on 8 January 1995, if he will give the Welsh share of United Kingdom public expenditure on the basis of(a) the attribution of defence expenditure, (b) Wales's share of defence equipment expenditure and of United Kingdom based armed forces and (c) MOD civilian personnel; and if he will give the 1993–94 figure for MOD expenditure in Wales on the above basis corresponding to the £968 million used in table 6 of his publication. [9184]
  382
  Mr. Hague
  Defence expenditure on behalf of Wales in 1993–94 has been estimated at £968 million by apportioning Wales's share of total UK defence expenditure on the basis of GDP. This is the basis used in the report "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94". Apportioning defence expenditure on a population basis would place the figure at £1,143 million. Everyone in the UK benefits from total UK defence spending. The valuation of these benefits to people in Wales—as estimated—is a different question from the value of defence services purchased from within Wales. Only partial information on the latter is available. Figures published by the Ministry of Defence in the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" indicate that expenditure on equipment in Wales in 1993–94 was £50 million, or 1 per cent. of the UK total. At 1 July 1993 some 5,100 services personnel, or 2.5 per cent. of the UK total, and 5,000 civilian personnel, around 4 per cent. of the UK total, were deployed in Wales. An accurate allocation of costs to personnel on a regional basis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on the same basis as was used in his publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94", if he will give the Welsh share of United Kingdom public expenditure for each year since 1979 and the Welsh share of revenue arising. [8737]

  Mr. Hague
  The analysis carried out in relation to 1993–94 has not been done for earlier years and so directly comparable figures are not available. However, details of identifiable general Government expenditure in Wales are published each year by the Treasury in the statistical supplement to the Autumn Statement, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil service personnel hours were spent in preparing the document "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94". [8739]

  Mr. Hague
  The total time taken to prepare the report is estimated at around 150 person-hours.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total cost of preparing and publishing the document "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94". [8738]

  Mr. Hague
  The total cost of preparing and publishing the report is estimated at around £5,000.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on the same basis as was used in his publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94" what estimate he has made of the length of time required on current Government regional development policies to bring tax receipts in Wales up to the United Kingdom average. [8736]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the mitigation measures on the Gwent levels corresponding to the loss of feeding grounds arising from the Cardiff bay barrage project. [8741]

  Mr. Hague
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in 1993–94, 1994–95 and projected for 1995–96. [9083]

  Mr. Hague
  Hospitality expenditure for Cadw is as follows:

  1993–94: £2,248

  1994–95: £1,734

  1995–96: £1,500 projected.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 779, if the figures for hospitality spending 1994–95 and 1995–96 includes spending by his Department's agencies. [9084]

  Mr. Hague
  No.

  Emergency Medical Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the closure of all south Wales hospitals for emergency medical admissions on Monday 8 January. [8735]

  Mr. Hague
  While under heavy pressure following a period of severe weather and high levels of staff sickness, hospitals in south Wales coped with the demand for emergency treatment, and I understand that no patient requiring emergency care was refused admission on 8 January. I thank all the dedicated staff involved for their commitment and effort during a difficult period.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will carry out a review of the availability of emergency medical admission beds in Welsh hospitals; if he will arrange that such a review covers the impact of influenza, bronchitis and other conditions on staff and patients and the seasonal pattern thereof; and what allowance should be made for such peaks and troughs in calculating the overall supply of medical emergency beds. [8742]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials met leading NHS managers and clinicians on 7 December to assess the extent and possible causes of the increasing pressure on acute hospitals posed by the rise in emergency medical admissions. It was agreed that the NHS should develop as a matter of urgency an effective response to these pressures, both in the short and long term. An action plan was agreed before Christmas.

  NHS representatives are meeting on 17 January to review the way in which the service responded to the unusual set of pressures faced over the Christmas and early new year period, and to consider in the light of this experience whether the existing action plan needs to be revised.

  I will he receiving a copy of their report and will continue to monitor the position on emergency admissions very closely indeed.

  Salford University Business Services Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the cost of the contract given to Salford University Business Services Ltd. to act as 384
  recruitment consultants to recruit innovation and technology counsellors to provide business contact services in Wales. [9179]

  Mr. Hague
  Salford University Business Services Ltd. has been awarded a contract worth £20,750 to manage the pan-Wales recruitment of innovation and technology counsellors to Business Connect, Wales.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) guidelines and (b) other advice has been issued by his Department to (i) NHS bodies and (ii) other organisations regarding the use of the private finance initiative. [9079]

  Mr. Hague
  Detailed guidance on the private finance initiative was issued to the NHS in Wales—under the cover of a letter numbered DGM (95)112, in July 1995. A copy of this guidance has been placed in the Library of the House. Guidance on information management and technology projects within the NHS is being prepared.

  The Treasury handbook "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit" is being distributed widely in Wales and this will build on the general advice that has already been provided.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which capital projects are currently being considered under the private finance initiative; and what is the cost of each project. [9057]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated capital value of each of the projects being looked at currently, which have been announced, are as follows: M4 relief road, £330 million; A465 Heads of the Valleys road, £175 million; eastern bay link of the Cardiff peripheral distributor road, £108 million; new general hospital at Baglan, £40 million; staff residential accommodation, district general hospital, Llantrisant, £3 million; day surgery unit and mental health development, Nevill Hall, Abergavenny, £7 million; cancer treatment centre, Glan Clwyd district general hospital, Rhy1, £15 million; community hospital, Chepstow, £6 million; replacement of radiotherapy equipment, Velindre, £4 million; OSIRIS, office automation system for Welsh Office, £13 million.

  Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected.

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the auditor's report produced by Coopers and Lybrand, Cardiff into the circumstances leading up to, and the financial implications of, the departure of the chief executive of the Pembrokeshire NHS trust in 1994. [8586]

  Mr. Richards
  We have not received any such report. If one is received, we will place a copy in the Library of the House, provided that legal considerations do not prevent us from doing so.

  Blood Shortage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many surgical patients, broken down as to in-patients and day cases, had their operations(a) cancelled or

  385
  (b) transferred to English hospitals as a result of the blood transfusion shortage since 8 December 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8734]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on patients being transferred to England is not held centrally. No emergency operations were cancelled in Welsh hospitals; only those patients requiring group O blood had operations deferred. This was for a limited period of 48 hours.

  IMAX Theatre Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement in relation to the funding of the IMAX theatre project of the national museum of Wales. [8740]

  Mr. Hague
  The national museums and galleries of Wales's corporate plan 1995–96 to 1999–2000 discusses museum developments in Cardiff bay, including the possible development of an IMAX theatre. No specific proposals have been submitted to the Welsh Office. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, (Mr. Richards), has made it clear to the museum that any request by the museum for funding towards an IMAX project would not be agreed to.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an inquiry into the changes in(a) the perinatal, (b) the neonatal and (c) the infant mortality rates in Wales between 1993 and 1994. [9527]

  Mr. Hague
  No. Despite an increase of 14 deaths between 1993 and 1994 the trend is still clearly downward.

  G-12: Infant mortality rate

  (per 1000 live births)

  1960

  1965

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  EUR 15

  34.5

  27.5

  23.4

  18.1

  12.4

  9.5

  8.4

  8.0

  7.6

  7.4p

  6.9p

  6.5p

  B

  31.2

  23.7

  21.1

  16.1

  12.1

  9.8

  9.0

  8.7

  8.0

  8.2p

  8.2p

  8.0p

  DK

  21.5

  18.7

  14.2

  10.4

  8.4

  7.9

  7.6

  8.0

  7.5

  7.3

  6.6

  5.4

  D

  35.0

  24.1

  22.5

  18.9

  12.4

  9.1

  7.6

  7.5

  7.0

  6.9

  6.2

  5.8

  GR

  40.1

  34.3

  29.6

  24.0

  17.9

  14.1

  11.0

  9.7

  9.7

  9.0

  8.4

  8.5

  E

  43.7

  37.8

  28.1

  18.9

  12.3

  8.9

  8.0

  7.8

  7.6

  7.2

  7.1

  6.9p

  F

  27.5

  22.0

  18.2

  13.8

  10.0

  8.3

  7.8

  7.5

  7.3

  7.3

  6.8

  6.4p

  IRL

  29.3

  25.2

  19.5

  17.5

  11.1

  8.8

  8.9

  8.1

  8.2

  7.6

  6.7

  6.0

  I

  43.9

  36.0

  29.6

  21.2

  14.6

  10.5

  9.3

  8.7

  8.2

  8.1

  8.3p

  7.3p

  L

  31.5

  24.0

  24.9

  14.8

  11.5

  9.0

  8.7

  9.9

  7.3

  9.2

  8.5

  6.0

  NL

  17.9

  14.4

  12.7

  10.6

  8.6

  8.0

  6.8

  6.8

  7.1

  6.5

  6.3

  6.3

  A

  37.5

  28.3

  25.9

  20.5

  14.3

  11.2

  8.1

  8.3

  7.8

  7.5

  7.5

  6.5

  P

  77.5

  64.9

  55.5

  38.9

  24.3

  17.8

  13.1

  12.2

  11.0

  10.8

  9.3

  8.7

  FIN

  21.0

  17.6

  13.2

  10.0

  7.6

  6.3

  6.1

  6.0

  5.6

  5.9

  5.2

  4.4

  S

  16.6

  13.3

  11.0

  8.6

  6.9

  6.8

  5.8

  5.8

  6.0

  6.2

  5.3

  4.8

  UK

  22.5

  19.7

  18.5

  16.1

  12.1

  9.3

  9.0

  8.4

  7.9

  7.4

  6.6

  6.3p

  IS

  13.0

  15.0

  13.2

  12.5

  7.7

  5.7

  6.2

  5.5

  5.9

  5.5

  4.8

  4.8

  FL

  21.1

  22.8

  11.8

  6.5

  7.6

  10.7

  4.8

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  N

  18.9

  16.8

  12.7

  11.1

  8.1

  8.5

  8.3

  7.9

  7.0

  6.4

  5.9

  5.1

  EEA

  34.4

  27.4

  23.3

  18.0

  12.4

  9.5

  8.4

  8.0

  7.6

  7.4p

  6.9p

  6.5p

  CH

  21.1

  17.8

  15.1

  10.7

  9.1

  6.9

  6.8

  7.3

  6.8

  6.2

  6.4

  5.6

  G-13: Neonatal mortality rate

  1960

  1965

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  EUR 15

  —

  —

  —

  12.6

  8.3

  6.0

  5.1

  4.8

  4.5

  4.4p

  —

  —

  B

  20.4

  16.0

  14.2

  11.7

  7.5

  5.8

  5.1

  4.2

  4.2

  4.3p

  —

  —

  DK

  16.1

  14.7

  11.0

  8.0

  5.6

  4.7

  4.6

  4.7

  4.6

  4.2

  4.1

  3.5

  D

  23.1

  —

  17.2

  13.4

  8.1

  5.3

  4.2

  4.2

  3.7

  3.5

  3.4

  3.1

  GR

  19.5

  19.8

  19.6

  18.0

  13.9

  10.6

  8.1

  6.6

  6.5

  6.1

  5.7

  6.1

  386
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what information he has on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality rates in other European countries in 1993 and 1994; [9524]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the use of perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality rates in other European countries as comparators for the Welsh statistics; and if he will make a statement. [9523]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is contained in the following tables, taken from "Demographic Statistics 1995" published by Eurostat. A copy of this document is available in the Library of the House. No figures are available for 1994.

  I have not commissioned or evaluated research on the use of perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality rates in other European countries as comparators for the Welsh statistics. However, comparisons of infant mortality rates between the United Kingdom and other countries are compiled, evaluated and published by the appropriate international organisation, in particular the World Health Organisation and Eurostat.

  The figures published for Wales in "Health Statistics Wales" show that despite a small increase in deaths between 1993 and 1994 the trend is still clearly downward. The increase last year may not in itself be significant, although we do keep the situation under review.

  The figures from 1990–94 show an overall reduction in the rate of infant mortality—the number of deaths per 1,000 live births—from 6.9 to 6.1. The figures published by various international organisations indicate that this is one of the lowest rates in Europe, and a figure of which Wales should be proud.
  387

  G-13: Neonatal mortality rate

  1960

  1965

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  E

  20.2

  20.0

  17.5

  12.6

  8.5

  5.9

  5.2

  5.1

  5.0

  4.6

  4.6p

  —

  F

  17.7

  15.3

  12.7

  9.1

  5.8

  4.6

  4.1

  3.8

  3.6

  3.5

  3.3

  —

  IRL

  20.4

  17.2

  12.8

  12.0

  6.7

  5.3

  5.3

  4.8

  4.8

  5.0

  4.3

  4.0

  I

  23.9

  22.5

  20.6

  16.1

  11.3

  8.2

  7.3

  6.8

  6.3

  6.2

  —

  —

  L

  19.1

  16.3

  16.8

  9.5

  5.3

  2.9

  4.1

  6.4

  4.3

  5.0

  4.1

  3.4

  NL

  13.5

  11.4

  9.5

  7.6

  5.7

  5.0

  4.6

  4.6

  4.8

  4.6

  4.4

  4.5

  A

  —

  —

  —

  15.5

  9.4

  7.1

  4.8

  4.9

  4.4

  4.4

  4.7

  3.7

  P

  27.9

  25.4

  24.3

  22.1

  15.5

  12.2

  8.6

  8.1

  7.0

  6.9

  6.0

  5.6

  FIN

  14.4

  13.6

  10.5

  7.8

  5.1

  4.3

  3.9

  4.1

  3.7

  4.2

  3.7

  3.0

  S

  —

  —

  9.1

  6.4

  5.0

  4.2

  3.7

  3.7

  3.5

  3.6

  3.3

  3.1

  UK

  16.0

  13.4

  12.5

  10.9

  7.7

  5.3

  4.9

  4.7

  4.5

  4.4

  4.3

  4.2p

  IS

  9.2

  10.6

  10.2

  8.9

  6.0

  3.6

  4.1

  3.3

  4.0

  2.9

  3.7

  2.8

  FL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N

  11.7

  11.9

  9.5

  7.3

  5.1

  4.7

  4.5

  3.9

  3.9

  3.7

  3.8

  3.5

  EEA

  —

  —

  —

  12.6

  8.3

  6.0

  5.1

  4.8

  4.5

  4.4p

  —

  —

  CH

  16.1

  13.8

  10.9

  7.4

  5.9

  4.5

  4.2

  4.4

  3.8

  3.6

  3.9

  3.5

  G-17: Perinatal mortality rate

  1960

  1965

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  EUR 15

  —

  —

  —

  20.3

  14.1

  10.8

  9.2

  8.8

  8.3

  8.1p

  —

  —

  B

  31.9

  27.3

  23.3

  20.0

  14.1

  10.8

  9.7

  9.1

  8.9

  8.3p

  —

  —

  DK

  26.2

  23.9

  17.9

  13.3

  8.9

  8.1

  8.7

  9.1

  8.3

  7.9

  8.1

  7.4

  D

  31.2

  25.3

  25.3

  18.8

  12.1

  8.4

  7.0

  6.8

  6.3

  5.8

  5.8

  5.4

  GR

  26.4

  29.4

  27.4

  25.5

  20.3

  15.7

  12.9

  12.1

  11.9

  11.1

  10.0

  10.9

  E

  —

  —

  —

  20.9

  14.4

  10.9

  8.8

  8.2

  7.6

  7.2

  7.3

  —

  F

  31.4

  27.9

  23.3

  18.1

  12.9

  10.7

  9.2

  8.9

  8.3

  8.2

  7.7

  —

  IRL

  37.7

  30.0

  24.3

  21.5

  14.8

  12.3

  11.3

  10.3

  10.1

  9.5

  9.3p

  —

  I

  41.9

  36.5

  31.2

  24.2

  17.8

  13.5

  12.1

  11.0

  10.5

  10.4

  —

  —

  L

  32.2

  30.6

  24.7

  16.0

  9.8

  7.8

  7.1

  9.0

  6.9

  9.6

  7.7

  6.3

  NL

  26.6

  23.1

  18.6

  13.9

  11.1

  9.8

  9.1

  9.6

  9.6

  9.1

  9.1

  9.1

  A

  —

  —

  —

  21.2

  14.1

  10.1

  7.3

  7.6

  6.9

  6.5

  6.8

  6.1

  P

  41.1

  38.6

  36.5

  31.3

  23.9

  21.5

  16.6

  16.3

  14.2

  13.7

  11.9

  10.2

  FIN

  27.5

  24.5

  17.0

  12.4

  8.4

  7.3

  6.5

  6.4

  6.2

  6.8

  5.9

  5.1

  S

  —

  —

  16.4

  11.3

  8.8

  7.4

  6.9

  6.6

  6.5

  6.6

  5.8

  5.9

  UK

  33.5

  27.7

  23.7

  19.8

  13.4

  9.9

  8.7

  8.3

  8.1

  8.1

  7.7

  9.1p

  IS

  19.7

  24.0

  18.5

  15.6

  8.8

  5.2

  7.5

  4.2

  6.3

  4.6

  6.7

  4.1

  FL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N

  23.7

  21.4

  19.1

  14.1

  11.1

  9.1

  7.8

  7.6

  7.5

  7.4

  7.4

  6.9

  EEA

  —

  —

  —

  20.3

  14.1

  10.8

  9.2

  8.8

  8.3

  8.1p

  —

  —

  CH

  25.6

  22.8

  18.1

  13.4

  9.5

  8.3

  7.2

  7.8

  7.7

  7.1

  7.0

  6.8

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the(a) perinatal, (b) neonatal and (c) infant mortality rates in Wales in (i) the first quarter and (ii) the first half of 1995; and if he will place that information in the Library. [9528]

  Mr. Hague
  The information, provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, is in the following table. All the data are provisional:

  First quarter of 1995

  First half of 1995

  Perinatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live and still births)

  7.3

  7.0

  Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)

  3.9

  3.6

  Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)

  6.0

  5.4

  Hospital Out-patients (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital out-patients received refunds of fares or other travel expenses to Welsh hospitals in 1994–95; how many were(a) paid directly by the hospital payments office and (b) reimbursed subsequently by (i) the family
  388
  health services authority and (ii) the Benefits Agency; and what was the average wait for reimbursement. [9526]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the reason for the omission of statistics for women in Mid-Glamorgan in table 4.4 of "Health Statistics Wales 1995;" and if he will make a statement. [9525]

  Mr. Hague
  Mid-Glamorgan family health services authority was unable to supply the relevant information for 1994–95. This was due to computer problems.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for 1994–95 for each family health services authority the numbers of cervical smears the results of which were(a) negative, (b) inadequate sample for proper reading, (c) borderline, (d) mild dyskariosis, (e) moderate dyskariosis, (f) severe dyskariosis, (g) possible invasive changes and (h) glandular neoplasia. [9531]

  Mr. Hague
  The requested information could not be produced within the time available. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in the Arfan borough area as a direct benefit of the reorganisation of local government. [9388]

  Mr. Hague
  I have made no such estimate. Any reduction in staffing will depend on decisions taken by the new councils which replace those based on the Arfon area.

  Head Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the highest salary paid to any local education authority head teacher of (i) an infants, (ii) a primary and (iii) a high school. [9067]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The highest known salaries at 31 March 1994 of full-time head teachers in the local education authority maintained sector are:

  Type of school

  England £

  Wales £

  Nursery

  36,900

  25,400

  Infant

  39,900

  29,400

  Other primary

  43,800

  34,400

  Secondary

  60,500

  50,700

  Notes:

  1. Including any allowances.

  2. The salary details are derived from information provided by local authorities primarily for pensions purposes. Information may be incomplete in some cases.

  3. Teachers in grant-maintained schools are not included.

  4. Excludes head teachers in sixth form colleges.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average salary of a (i) nursery, (ii) infant, (iii) primary and (iv) high school head teacher. [9066]

  Mr. Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average salaries at 31 March 1994 of full-time head teachers in the maintained sector are shown.

  Type of school

  England £

  Wales £

  England and Wales £

  Nursery

  24,600

  24,000

  24,500

  Infant

  27,000

  25,600

  26,000

  Other primary

  27,200

  25,600

  27,000

  Secondary

  37,000

  37,400

  37,100

  1. Including any allowances.

  2. The average salary is derived from information provided by local authorities and, grant-maintained schools primarily for pensions purposes. Information may be incomplete in some cases.

  3. Excludes head teachers in sixth form colleges.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their
  390
  advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring expenses of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6414]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on expenditure in the format requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Training Companies
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria under which private training companies in Scotland may participate in schemes financed by the European social fund. [8098]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A private sector company can participate only as a contractor to a public sector sponsor of a scheme financed by the European social fund.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the privately owned training firms in Scotland which have taken part in schemes financed by the European social fund in the last two years; and how much they were paid. [8099]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Public sector sponsors of schemes for which finance is sought from the European social fund are not required to state on their application whether any contractors which they use are privately owned.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to introducing a local income tax in Scotland. [6765]

  Mr. Kynoch
  None.

  Youth Training (Accidents)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor accidents took place on youth training schemes in Scotland in (i) July to September 1993, (ii) October to December 1993, (iii) January to March 1994, (iv) April to June 1994, (v) July to September 1994, (vi) October to December 1994, (vii) January to March 1995, (viii) April to June 1995 and (ix) July to September 1995; and what were the numbers of accidents on training for work for the same periods. [6481]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Youth training

  July-September 1993

  0

  4

  41

  October-December 1993

  1

  4

  36

  January-March 1994

  1

  12

  34

  April-June 1994

  0

  18

  56

  July-September 1994

  0

  11

  38

  October-December 1994

  0

  10

  42

  January-March 1995

  0

  6

  45

  April-June 1995

  0

  4

  18

  July-September 1995

  0

  6

  39

  Training for work

  July-September 1993

  0

  1

  19

  October-December 1993

  0

  3

  14

  January-March 1994

  0

  1

  16

  April-June 1994

  0

  1

  15

  July-September 1994

  0

  4

  5

  October-December 1994

  0

  2

  18

  391

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  January-March 1995

  0

  2

  9

  April-June 1995

  0

  2

  8

  July-September 1995

  0

  0

  16

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions in total have now been performed in Scotland under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; how many and what percentage of that total were performed in an emergency to save the life of the mother; and if he will give a breakdown by region of that total and the relevant figures and percentages. [6795]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The total number of therapeutic abortions performed in Scotland from 1968–1994 was 222,651. During this period 17 abortions, 0.01 per cent., were performed in an emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman. A breakdown by health board of residence is shown in the table.

  Health board of residence

  Total number of abortions

  Performed in emergency1

  Percentage of total

  Argyll and Clyde

  14,948

  1

  0.01

  Ayrshire and Arran

  13,604

  0

  0

  Borders

  3,528

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,245

  4

  0.08

  Fife

  15,960

  0

  0

  Forth Valley

  9,872

  1

  0.01

  Grampian

  27,475

  2

  0.01

  Greater Glasgow

  36,419

  1

  0

  Highland

  9,828

  3

  0.03

  Lanarkshire

  17,094

  0

  0

  Lothian

  42,148

  3

  0.01

  Orkney

  580

  0

  0

  Shetland

  639

  0

  0

  Tayside

  23,869

  2

  0.01

  Western Isles

  526

  0

  0

  Outwith Scotland/NK

  916

  0

  0

  Total

  222,651

  17

  0.01

  1Abortions performed under Statutory ground F—i.e., where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  1. 1994 data are provisional.

  Qualified nursing staff in selected areas of employment

  Area of employment

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (a) Registered nursing homes1

  Number

  4,498

  5,314

  6,048

  6,022

  77,211

  WTE2

  3054.8

  3686.0

  4304.2

  4538.3

  75985.1

  (b) Private hospitals1,3

  Number

  328

  356

  393

  293

  7216

  WTE2

  280.8

  279.7

  326.8

  246.5

  7167.5

  (c) Local authorities4

  Number

  661

  772

  770

  870

  n/a

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what means he assesses the demand for conversion courses for second level registered nurses. [8343]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: It is for NHS trusts to determine the qualifications and number of staff they require and to arrange conversion courses for second level nurses to meet these needs.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students commenced training as initial entrants by means of(a) salaried students places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study for each of the last five years; [8348]

  (2) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, gave up their training in (i) the first year, (ii) the second year and (iii) the third year for each of the last five years; [8347]

  (3) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, (i) qualified and (ii) registered with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for each of the last five years; [8345]

  (4) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, gave up their courses for each year of training for each of the last five years. [8346]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: This information is not held centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of nurses working in(a) private nursing homes, (b) private hospitals, (c) local authorities, (d) private residential homes, (e) the armed forces, (f) the prison service, (g) the occupational health service, (h) private industry, (i) self employment and (j) and other categories; and if he will express the figures in terms of (i) total numbers and (ii) whole time equivalents for each of the last five years. [8350]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The information available is shown in the table:
  393

  Qualified nursing staff in selected areas of employment

  Area of employment

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (j) NHS in Scotland5

  Number

  42,121

  42,259

  41,571

  41,679

  41,871

  WTE

  35,576.3

  35,454.7

  35,270.2

  35,381.4

  35,586.4

  GP Practice6

  Number

  1,065

  1,151

  1,249

  1,291

  1,349

  WTE

  646.6

  695.3

  747.9

  768.2

  808.4

  Notes:

  1Data for year ending 31 March.

  2Estimated.

  3Complete information from private hospitals is not available for 1994 and 1995.

  4Data include only those whose main qualification is in nursing (thereby excluding those whose main qualification is nursery nursing). Data are at 1 October.

  5Comprises registered and enrolled nurses; excludes nurse teachers, nurses in training and students on "1992" courses in nursing and midwifery. Data at 30 September (1995 data at 31 March).

  6Data refer to 1 April with the exception of staff in full fundholding practices in Grampian Health Board for whom expenditure was met from the Practice Staff Scheme, for whom data are as at the date on which the practice became a full fundholder. Excludes staff in fundholding practices in Fife health Board.

  7Provisional.

  n/a Not available.

  Source

  National Manpower Statistics Forms ISD(s)34 and ISD(M)8

  Information and Statistics Division

  The Scottish Office Department of Health (Social Work Services Group)

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to estimate demand for nurses from the non-NHS sector; and how this information will be used to regulate the supply of nursing students. [8340]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: As part of the new arrangements for contracting for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education, and annual exercise is being undertaken to determine an indication of future requirements for such qualified employees in Scotland. This includes assessment of the needs of the non-NHS sector by conducting research through NHS purchasers and other relevant organisations. The forecast of future demand for nursers and midwives emerging from this work will be used to inform decisions on the number of pre-registration places in diploma level nursing and midwifery education by means of a new work force planning model which is being developed.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of second level registered nurses; and how many are currently undertaking training to convert to first level registration. [8344]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: There were 8,832 second level registered nurses employed in the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1994 and 325 undertaking training to convert to first level registration at 31 December 1995.

  Health Service Planning
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has undertaken into work force planning in the last five years. [8342]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: For medical and dental NHS staff, the Scottish Office has each year asked employers how many new consultant posts they plan to set up in the next five years, and on this basis has calculated the number of senior posts in each specialty.
  394
  For nurses and midwives, an exercise was undertaken in 1994 to establish the required intakes for the five-year period commencing 1996 for the purposes of central purchasing of pre-registration education. the intake figures are subject to periodic review.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6413]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on expenditure in the format requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statement he has made of the consequence for Scotland of the reduction in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme. [8070]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Within the new total it is expected that the current number of grants paid to householders receiving income-related benefit will be maintained.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the consequences for Scotland of a move to central European time; and if he will make a statement. [8097]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office statisticians have over the last 12 months undertaken substantial work to examine the likely effect of a move to CET on accident casualties. Preliminary results, which
  395
  will be published shortly, will show that a change to CET would be broadly neutral in terms of the total number of road accident casualties in Scotland. The work is based on up-to-date analysis of Scottish accident data over a recent five-year period. It takes account of prevailing light conditions at over 20 locations in Scotland and the time of day when accidents took place.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail Pension Schemes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Minister for Public Transport's statement to Standing Committee B on 22 April 1993, column 1289, about the British Railways additional superannuation schemes, if it is the Government's intention that private sector employers should continue to make matching contributions on behalf of former BR employees who were contributing to Brass and receiving matching contributions at the time of their transfer to the private sector. [7452]

  Mr. John Watts
  Yes. Existing Brass employer contributions must be matched by new employers.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Robin Hood line to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [7453]

  Mr. Norris
  The Robin Hood line was extended to Mansfield Woodhouse on 20 November 1995. We have made it clear that we are willing in principle to provide funds for stage 3, which would take train services through to Worksop. This would of course be subject to the normal criteria for funding of local transport schemes, including value for money.

  Upgrade
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A303 between Sparkford and Podimore. [7455]

  Mr. Watts
  The A303 Sparkford-Ilchester improvement scheme is included in the next batch of design, build, finance and operate projects which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 28 November 1995.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the condition of the west coast main line. [7456]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has confirmed that the west coast main line is being maintained to meet the company's rigorous safety standards and contractual obligations to train operating companies.

  Major Road Construction
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past four years. at constant prices. [7458]
  396
  Sir George Young
  Expenditure on motorway and trunk road construction at constant 1995–96 prices in each of the past four complete years has been as follows:

  1991–92: £1.44 billion

  1992–93: £1.40 billion

  1993–94: £1.41 billion

  1994–95: £1.36 billion.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress in the design, build, finance and operate programme for trunk road development. [7459]

  Sir George Young
  I am delighted to announce that we signed the first DBFO project for A69 Carlisle-Newcastle on Friday 12 January. We have received robust bids on time for the second tranche and we announced a third tranche as part of the public expenditure settlement in November, bringing the total value of DBFO projects to over £1 billion.

  US-UK Air Services Agreement
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the US Secretary for Transportation to discuss the air services agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. [7461]

  Sir George Young
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what projects are under consideration in East Anglia under the private finance initiative. [7462]

  Mr. Watts
  We have been negotiating a contract for the improvement of the A 1 between Alconbury and Peterborough as part of a design build finance and operate road project.

  London Underground
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major works are programmed for 1996 for London Underground. [7463]

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground has recently announce a comprehensive programme of investment in a number of essential infrastructure projects over the next year or so. Construction of the Jubilee line extension will continue throughout 1996.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of London Underground operating costs are met by income from fares, income from commercial sources, and subsidy or grant; and what estimate he has made of the equivalent figures for public transport in(a) Amsterdam, (b) Paris, (c) Berlin and (d) Rome. [9158]

  Mr. Norris
  In 1994–95 London Underground's income from fares represented 115 per cent. of its operating costs, before provision for depreciation, renewals and reorganisation costs. Income from all other sources represented 5 per cent. of operating costs. No grant or subsidy was required to meet operating costs, though total grant of £776 million was paid to London Transport to fund capital investment. I have made no estimate of the equivalent figures for the four cities listed.
  397
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the A4 access to London. [7465]

  Mr. Watts
  There are two schemes in the national roads programme which will improve traffic flow and access on the A4. The preferred route for the junction improvements at Henley's and Waggoners corners should be announced shortly and the M4–A4 link, near Boston Manor road is in preparation for the longer term.

  Improvements are also proposed for Moor roundabout and adjacent junctions in association with the proposed Prospect park development.

  More modest long-term proposals are being considered at Boston Manor road junction, and for a new junction near Harlington corner.

  The A4 within London is part of the red route network. This is designed to improve the movement of traffic and implementation begins in February.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he has made to his timetable for rail privatisation. [7466]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the. Government's response to the Transport Select Committee report on railway finances published on 14 December 1995 which was placed in the Library of the House. The response to recommendation(a) of the report dealt with changes to the timetable for privatisation. I recently announced that Railtrack will be sold by stock market flotation in May 1996.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport what estimate he has made of the changes in the number of(a) jobs and (b) rail services as a result of rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [7467]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government believe that privatisation will lead to significant improvements to the railway network and services. These improvements will bring benefits not only to passengers but to the employment prospects of those who work in the railway and associated industries.

  M4 Widening
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he now has to extend the widening of the M4 between Slough East and Reading West intersections. [7468]

  Mr. Norris
  Following the recent review of the programme, the proposals for the M4 and the M25 to Maidenhead are to be reviewed to establish the potential for smaller-scale improvements.

  The schemes between Maidenhead and Reading are now in the longer term programme and will be taken forward only as the main programme is completed.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to reduce the number of road accidents. [7469]
  398
  Mr. Norris
  New measures planned or underway to improve road safety include the introduction of the theory part of the driving test in July and the safe town initiative.

  London Transport Fares
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in London Transport fares over(a) the past five years and (b) the last decade; and what was the general inflation rise over the same period. [7470]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage increase in

  1989–90 to 1994–95

  1984–85 to 1994–95

  London Bus fares

  49

  120

  London Underground fares

  50

  122

  General prices as measured by the retail prices index

  24

  61

  Transport Projects, Greater London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what order he expects to announce firm decisions on each of the main major transport projects planned for Greater London. [7471]

  Mr. Norris
  This will depend upon a number of factors including the availability of public and private finance.

  Road Accidents (Bicycles)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it mandatory for bicycles to be fitted with a warning bell. [8567]

  Mr. Norris
  We have recently gone out to public consultation on proposals to update the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations with a view to incorporating into them the latest British Standard on the construction of pedal cycles. This consultation also asks for views on the compulsory fitting and use of bells on pedal cycles and we shall be considering the matter in the light of responses.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents in each of the past 10 years have involved bicycles. [8564]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of accidents (GB)

  1985

  27,482

  1986

  26,641

  1987

  26,616

  1988

  26,161

  1989

  28,941

  1990

  26,724

  1991

  25,042

  1992

  24,962

  1993

  24.300

  1994

  25,065

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Minister in his Department was responsible for discussions over the roads programme budget with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. [9518]

  Sir George Young
  I am responsible for my Department's public expenditure discussions with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Environmental Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will (1) specifically address each of the recommendations listed in the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", when he responds to that report; [9097]

  (2) when he intends to respond to the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment". [9096]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 6 December 1995,Official Report, columns 264–69.

  Public Transport, Leeds
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with representatives of West Yorkshire passenger transport authority to discuss public transport in Leeds. [7464]

  Mr. Norris
  I met representatives from West Yorkshire passenger transport authority in Leeds on 25 September 1995 and I expect to meet them again soon.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Managing the Trunk Road Programme". [8661]

  Mr. Watts
  The environmental impacts of each scheme in the national roads programme are assessed carefully and considered before a decision is taken to proceed.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by the Department of the Environment;, and if he will publish the appraisal; [8658]

  (2) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [8659]

  (3) how "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" was modified by the results of any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [8660]

  Mr. Watts
  The 1995 review involved a re-assessment of priorities within the roads programme rather than the adoption of a new policy. Each scheme's likely effects on the environment were taken into account during the 400
  review. A number of schemes were withdrawn because they could not achieve an acceptable environmental balance.

  Birmingham New Street Station (Safety)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive is taking to ensure the safety of platform gaps at Birmingham New Street station. [8959]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack and train operators are responsible for safety at this station.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate monitors the actions of Railtrack and the train operators to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is maintained.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recommendations he has received from the railway inspectorate in relation to platform safety at Birmingham New Street station. [8960]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Heathrow to Paddington Rail Link
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Heathrow to Paddington express rail link. [9389]

  Mr. Watts
  The Heathrow express rail link, a joint venture between British Airports Authority and Railtrack, is under construction. The Heathrow express service, which will run between Heathrow and Paddington every 15 minutes, is expected to start in June 1998.

  Bus and Rail Passengers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the changes in distance travelled by passengers by bus and rail since 1979; and what assessment he has made of the figures for(a) the United States and (b) other countries in Western Europe. [9155]

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1979 travel in Great Britain by bus and coach has decreased by 12 per cent. while that by rail is virtually unchanged. Statistics for international companies are not available in the form requested because data are collected on a differing basis in each country.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [9169]

  Mr. Norris
  The amount spend on official hospitality by Department of Transport agencies in 1993–94 and 1994–95 and projected spend for 1995–96 are as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Highways Agency1

  —

  6,125

  4,524

  The Coastguard Agency1

  —

  9,013

  12,000

  Marine Safety Agency1

  —

  16,825

  16,020

  Driving Standards Agency

  1,737

  281

  2,000

  401

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Transport Research Laboratory

  4,255

  4,026

  1,850

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1,443

  674

  1,200

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  0

  0

  0

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  9,067

  11,247

  14,693

  Total

  16,502

  48,191

  52,287

  1Agencies not in existence in 1993–94.

  London Transport
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the reorganisation of London Transport, announced by the chairman on 24 November 1994, was completed. [8943]

  Mr. Norris
  The timing of changes to LT's internal organisation is primarily a matter for its management, but I understand that the re-organisation was substantially completed by April 1995.

  Fitness to Drive
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the members of the panel of optometrists who responded to an EU directive which has required a change in the legislation, with effect from 1 July 1996, covering medical aspects of fitness to drive. [8633]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not have information about which members of the Association of Optometrists contributed to the response.

  Road Accidents (Red Routes)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the accident rate has been on red routes(a) for the last five years and (b) for the five years before the roads were designated as red routes. [9342]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested. Implementation of the red route network began only in 1994–95. The Traffic Director for London will be monitoring its performance.

  Railways Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the gross capital spending on track and property infrastructure in each of the last 10 years, including the projection up to the end of the current financial year, by Railtrack and British Rail, by region and nationally; and if he will make a statement. [8463]

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows the capital spending on track and property infrastructure nationally for each of the last ten years.

  £ million cash

  1986–87

  1460

  1987–88

  1539

  1988–89

  1521

  1989–90

  1661

  1990–91

  1695

  1991–92

  1862

  402

  £ million cash

  1992–93

  1938

  1993–94

  1825

  1994–95

  2695

  1995–96

  3780

  1Spending on track renewals, signaling and track projects, electrification, telecoms, terminals (which includes some international spending), depots and other.

  2Does not include any international spending.

  3Estimated.

  The information is not available on a regional basis.

  National Road Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the parliamentary constituency or constituencies in which each scheme in the national road programme lies; and if he will indicate changes in the status of those schemes listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) of 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 802. [8220]

  Mr. Watts
  I have put in the Library the schemes included in the national road programme as set out in "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" November 1995. The table is sorted in constituency order showing the 1995 review status and the previous 1994 review status of the included schemes. We have included under the constituency heading, some schemes which, although outside the constituency boundary, are considered as having an impact upon the adjacent areas. The table does not include those national road schemes currently under construction. I shall also place copies of this information in the Library.

  Heathrow Airport (Night Flights)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) obtain from the British Airports Authority and (b) publish those flights which landed at Heathrow airport between midnight and 7 am on Christmas morning 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8218]

  Mr. Norris
  The information from BAA plc is as follows:

  Airline aircraft

  Origin

  Due

  Actual

  Deutsche-Rettungsflugwacht Cessna 441

  Berlin-Tempelhof

  0010

  0029

  British Airways

  Delhi

  0510

  0441

  B747

  British Airways

  Boston

  0455

  0443

  B767

  British Airways

  Hong Kong

  0445

  0448

  B747

  British Airways

  Bombay

  0525

  0455

  B747

  British Airways

  Johannesburg

  0525

  0505

  B747

  British Airways

  Hong Kong

  0500

  0509

  B747

  British Airways

  Singapore

  0535

  0532

  B747

  British Airways

  Lusaka

  0555

  0537

  B747

  British Airways

  Bangkok

  0540

  0548

  B747

  Virgin Atlantic

  Hong Kong

  0515

  0552

  A340

  British Airways

  Jeddah

  0555

  0554

  B767

  Singapore Airlines

  Singapore

  0540

  0557

  B747

  Gulf Air

  Bahrain

  0555

  0559

  B767

  British Airways

  Kuwait

  0625

  0606

  B767

  British Airways

  Bridgetown

  0655

  0610

  B747

  Cathay Pacific

  Hong Kong

  0610

  0612

  B747

  Korean Air

  Anchorage

  0620

  0614

  B747

  Malaysia Airways

  Kuala Lumpur

  0545

  0615

  B747

  EL AL

  Tel Aviv

  0630

  0618

  B747

  Qantas

  Singapore

  0530

  0620

  B747

  Qantas

  Bangkok

  0625

  0622

  B747

  British Airways

  Bahrain

  0640

  0624

  B767

  American Airlines

  New York

  0620

  0625

  B767

  403

  Airline aircraft

  Origin

  Due

  Actual

  Thai Airways Int.

  Bangkok

  0620

  0627

  B747

  United Airlines

  Washington

  0630

  0632

  B777

  British Airways

  Johannesburg

  0655

  0634

  B747

  South African Airways

  Johannesburg

  0630

  0636

  B747

  Air Namibia

  Frankfurt

  0645

  0638

  B747

  British Airways

  Dubai

  0625

  0640

  B777

  American Airlines

  Chicago

  0625

  0641

  MD11

  United Airlines

  New York

  0625

  0643

  B767

  United Airlines

  Newark

  0650

  0645

  B777

  Canadian Airlines Int.

  Toronto

  0620

  0649

  DC10

  United Airlines

  Washington

  0700

  0654

  B77

  Air Canada

  Montreal

  0645

  0700

  B767

  Of these landings, all of those between midnight and 06.00 counted against the movements limit and against the noise quota except for the Cessna flight from Berlin, that aircraft being exempt from the night restrictions.

  Diesel Engine Pollution
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 59, how many telephone calls have been received by the Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement group offices reporting smoking diesels; and what estimate he has made of the cost of making this a freephone facility. [8211]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of phone calls made to the smoky diesel hotline since its launch in 1991 was detailed in my answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 882–83.

  Based on the latest figures—11,861 calls between April and October 1995—we estimate that the direct cost of setting up the hotline as a freephone facility and running it for a year would be between £7,500 and £10,500. This excludes the cost of staff to answer and follow up calls.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has as to how many dwellings on the Trowbridge estate, Hackney will in the absence of a medical condition aggravated by physical effects qualify as seriously affected under the discretionary purchase scheme published by Union Rail in July 1995 in relation to the channel tunnel rail link. [9086]

  Mr. Watts
  No estimate has been made of the number of dwellings on the Trowbridge estate which might qualify under the scheme. It is for individual owner occupiers to apply if they consider they may be eligible.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what predicted levels of settlement will qualify as seriously affecting the enjoyment of a property for the purposes of the discretionary purpose scheme for the channel tunnel rail link published in July 1995. [9075]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the discretionary purchase guidelines it is for Union Railways Ltd. to decide whether predicted levels of settlement seriously affect the enjoyment of an individual property, taking account also of other relevant factors that would affect enjoyment.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek an amendment to paragraph 6 of the discretionary purchase scheme published in July 1995 by Union Rail to reassure property owners that predicted 404
  settlement of appropriate severity in combination with diminution of value will trigger an offer to buy from Union Rail. [9087]

  Mr. Watts
  Settlement and many other relevant factors can already be taken into account in considering applications for purchase under the discretionary purchase guidelines for the channel tunnel rail link.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Materials (Exports)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 473, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines of the nuclear suppliers group. [8282]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to support the application by Cyprus for membership of the European Union if there has not been a settlement on the division of Cyprus before the application is discussed. [8548]

  The Prime Minister
  We welcome the prospect of Cypriot membership of the EU. We want to see the whole island join, on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. The prospect of accession provides an opportunity which the United Kingdom and its EU partner's are determined to use to facilitate the search for a settlement.

  Sport on Television
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the policy on sport on television contained in the letter from the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for The Wrekin dated 19 December 1995 is now being reviewed by the Prime Minister. [8705]

  The Prime Minister
  As my hon. Friend made clear, the Government's position is that sporting bodies should in general be free to dispose of their broadcasting rights in the interests of their sport. I am aware of public debate on this issue; and we are keeping it under close review.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister how many mobile telephones were supplied to the Department of the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [9126]

  The Prime Minister
  A mobile telephone was purchased for the office of my right hon. and noble Friend in 1993, from one supplier, and two were purchased in 1994, from another.

  Sport (National Body)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had, or intends to have with(a) the Sports Council and (b) governing bodies of individual

  405
  sports, concerning his proposal to establish a national academy or institute of sport; and if he intends promotion of wider participation in all sporting activity to be one of its principal objectives. [8481]

  The Prime Minister
  I made clear my policy on the British academy of sport in the policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game". The Sports Council is now consulting widely on what the structure and content of the academy might be. A copy of the council's consultation paper was placed in the Library of the House, and the closing date for responses is 31 January.

  The British academy of sport will be the top of a sporting ladder involving schools, clubs and further and higher education institutions, and other sport's centres, and will enable all those who wish to participate in sport to do so at as high a level as their abilities allow.

  Fisheries
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to raise fisheries at the intergovernmental conference; what factors led to him formulating these proposals; and if he will make a statement. [8382]

  The Prime Minister
  The common fisheries policy is not on the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. The IGC will be concerned with treaty change rather than the content of particular policies. We will continue to work for the improvement in the operation of the CFP in the appropriate fora.

  Dr. al-Masari
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library all the written representations made by the Saudi authorities over the presence in the United Kingdom of Dr. al-Masari; and what was the response of the Government. [9174]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my normal practice to do so.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions and on what dates he was asked directly or indirectly, formally or otherwise by the Saudi authorities about the presence in the United Kingdom of Dr. al-Masari; and what response he gave on each occasion. [9171]

  The Prime Minister
  The presence and activities of Dr. al-Masari in the United Kingdom have been raised by the Saudi authorities on a number of occasions. The Saudi's have been told that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of Dr. al-Masari's activities, and that he would be treated strictly in accordance with United Kingdom and international law.

  Severe Weather (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit those areas of Glasgow his Department estimates to be worst affected by the recent severe weather conditions. [8957]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his colleagues have already made a series of visits to water authority headquarters, including Glasgow, to meet the staff and hear at first hand about the handling of the 406
  problems created by record low temperatures and the thaw over the holiday period. Disruption was kept to a minimum and questions of hardship are being addressed as speedily as possible. My right hon. Friend has established a working party to report on general lessons.

  Knighthoods
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the recommendation for knighthoods of lords mayor of the City of London. [9685]

  The Prime Minister
  Such recommendations are considered in the same way as other recommendations for honours.

  10 Downing Street (Functions)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many functions at 10 Downing street since November 1990 have been at the expense of the Conservative party; [9820]

  (2) what guidelines are provided to the organisers of fund-raising events held at 10 Downing street in aid of political parties. [9821]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers under this and previous Administrations have been allowed—at their own or party expense—to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct expenses must be met by the organisers of the event. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

  Mr. John Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many functions to raise money for political parties have been held in 10 Downing street since November 1990; [9824]

  (2) how many functions to raise money for political parties were held in 10 Downing street between January 1980 and November 1990. [9819]

  The Prime Minister
  Under this and previous Administrations, a variety of functions have been held at No. 10 Downing street where the costs have been met by political parties. The purpose of such functions is not a matter for the Government, but I can confirm that since November 1990, there have been no functions at No. 10 Downing street at which funds have been raised for political parties, or for which tickets have been sold for the benefit of political parties.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what arrangements are being made for the division of clergy pensions following divorce, and if he will make a statement. [9480]

  Mr. Alison
  The Pensions Act 1995 makes provision for accrued rights to prospective benefits under an occupational pension scheme to be taken into account by the court in determining a financial settlement on divorce. The settlement may include an order allocating to a former spouse part of a benefit when it becomes payable
  407
  under the scheme. These arrangements will apply to the scheme for those in the Church's ministry in the same way as to any other occupational pension scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on a framework for discussions to lead to a settlement of the division of Cyprus. [8549]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Cyprus with the Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs. Ciller, when she was in London on 22 November.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Greek Government on a framework for discussions to lead to a settlement of the division of Cyprus. [8550]

  Mr. Davis
  We discuss the Cyprus dispute regularly with the Greek Government.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules of procedure relate to the declaration of private business interests in respect of officials of his Department posted overseas. [8632]

  Mr. Hanley
  All Foreign and Commonwealth office officials, overseas or not, who come into contact in an official capacity with a matter concerning a company, partnership or other business concern which they have an interest, must disclose that interest fully in writing.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions members of his Department(a) addressed a meeting, (b) attended a meeting and (c) met officials from the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies; and if he will list the Ministers and officials involved. [8647]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department has had occasional contact with the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies to discuss matters of mutual concern.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David, Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future situation including rights to citizenship of the citizens who belong to non-Chinese ethnic groups of Hong Kong after 30 June 1997. [8556]

  Mr. Hanley
  Hong Kong ethnic minority British dependent territories citizens can become British nationals (overseas) before 1 July 1997. Any who do not apply to become British nationals (overseas) will automatically become British Overseas citizens. Hong Kong ethnic minority British dependent territories citizens have guaranteed right of abode in Hong Kong both before and after 1 July 1997.

  International Agreements
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's publication "International Agreements: Practice and Procedures—Guidance Notes". [9037]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Yes.

  Dr. al-Masari
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he or other Ministers of his Department have had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade concerning the case of the Saudi Arabian Citizen, Mohammed al-Masari. [8699]

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministers have consulted on the case of Dr. al-Masari, as is normal for issues of mutual concern.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions and on what dates he was asked directly or indirectly, formally or otherwise, by the Saudi authorities about the presence in the United Kingdom of Dr. al-Masari; and what response he gave on each occasion. [9172]

  Mr. Hanley
  The presence and activities of Dr. al-Masari in the UK have been raised by the Saudi authorities on a number of occasions. The Saudis have been told that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of Dr. al-Masari's activities, but that he would be treated strictly in accordance with UK and international law.

  Saudi Arabia (Ambassador Designate)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) salary, (b) fees, (c) emoluments and (d) benefits in kind the ambassador designate to Saudi Arabia received as a non-executive director of Vickers while on secondment from the Foreign Office. [8546]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ambassador-designate to Saudi Arabia is an established member of Her Majesty's diplomatic service. He has therefore received no salary, fees, emoluments or benefits in kind as a non-executive director. Vickers has, however, met the travelling expenses to enable him to attend board meetings in the UK.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries to which his Department has made representations concerning human rights abuses during the past five years. [8568]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  During the period in question, we have regularly made representations—either bilaterally or with our European partners—to a large number of other Governments concerning human rights abuses. Details of such representations over the past five years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong and Beijing. [8570]
  409
  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Hong Kong and China from 6 to 11 January. In Hong Kong, he met the governor, members of the Legislative and Executive Councils, senior Hong Kong Government and British officials and business and community figures. This gave him an invaluable opportunity to hear at first hand the views and concerns of the people of Hong Kong about their future.

  My right hon. and learned Friend was warmly received in Peking and held frank and constructive discussions with President Jiang Zemin, Premier Li Peng, Vice Premier Qian Qichen, and the director of the State Council of Hong Kong and Macau Affairs.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the EU administrator in Mostar in respect of relations between the Croat and Moslim population in that city and a possible EU withdrawal from the Croat-Muslim federation. [8573]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The EU administrator's diplomatic adviser briefed officials on the situation in Mostar at a meeting of the EU ad hoc working group on the former Yugoslavia on 10 January.

  The EU's mandate to administer Mostar expires on 23 July 1996.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications, on what subjects, he has recently received from the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia. [8574]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British ambassador to Saudi Arabia reports regularly on a wide range of issues.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates and on what matters in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Tranport. [9099]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.

  British Troops (Torture)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which procedures are in place for acting on claims that British troops may have been subjected to psychological torture while hostages or prisoners. [9011]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  It is standard operational procedure for British troops to be debriefed after an operation. This was the case following the release of the British hostages by the Bosnian Serb army in June. The British Government will pass on any evidence of war crimes to the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  United Nations War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, giving their countries of origin and legal background, the names of the judges appointed to serve on the United Nations war crimes tribunal investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. [8651]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There are 11 judges in total. Five sit in the appeals chamber. The other six are split into two three-person teams, which preside over the two trial chambers.

  Trial chamber 1 consists of:—Judge Elisabeth Odio Benito, Costa Rica, former Minister of Justice in Costa Rica from May 1990;—Judge Claude Jorda, France, former public prosecutor of the Appeals Court in Paris from 1992;—Judge Fouad Riad, Egypt, former vice-president of the Institut de Droit International from 1993.

  Trial chamber 2 consists of:—Judge Gabrielle McDonald, USA, former visiting professor of law, St Mary's school of law, San Antonio, Texas from August 1991;—Judge Lal Chand Vohrah, Malaysia, former High court judge;—Judge Rustam S. Sidhwa, Pakistan, former judge of the Supreme Court from 1989 to 1992.

  The appeals chamber consists of:—Judge Antonio Cassese, Italy, former president of the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture from 1989;—judge Jules Deschenes, Canada, former chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada from 1985–87;—Judge Adolphus G. Karibi-Whyte, Nigeria, former justice to the Supreme Court from 1984; —Judge Haopei Li, China, former arbitrator of the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1993;—Judge Sir Ninian Stephen, Australia, Governor-General of Australia from 1982–89.

  United Nations Compensation Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, columns 54–55, if he will list the number of paid claims for each country and international organisation. [9532]

  Mr. Hanley
  The previous answer of 9 January included six countries which had submitted claims which were either transferred to another category or rejected. Paid claims by country or organisation are as follows:

  Algeria: 1

  Australia: 7

  Bangladesh: 79

  Belgium: 4

  Bulgaria: 3

  Canada: 11

  China: 2

  Egypt: 337

  Ethiopia: 1

  France: 47

  Germany: 5

  India: 189

  Iran: 2

  Ireland: 5

  411

  Israel: 96

  Italy: 13

  Jordan: 450

  Kenya: 1

  Korea: 1

  Kuwait: 2,134

  Lebanon: 21

  Mauritius: 1

  Morocco: 2

  Pakistan: 50

  Phillippines: 45

  Poland: 3

  Russian Federation: 1

  Slovak Republic: 1

  Somalia: 8

  Sri Lanka: 40

  Sudan: 81

  Sweden: 1

  Syria: 48

  Thailand: 4

  Tunisia: 5

  Ukraine: 1

  United Kingdom: 148

  United States of America: 50

  Yemen: 56

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: 1

  UNDP Jerusalem: 1

  UNDP Kuwait: 1

  UNDP Washington: 2

  UNHCR Bulgaria: 1

  UNHCR Canada: 1

  UNHCR Geneva: 3

  UNRWA Vienna: 3.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Business in the Community
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Business in the Community was formed; how many businesses are members; what assessment he has made of its ability to represent businesses in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement about the selection of this organisation in connection with the partnerships associated with the EU peace and reconciliation funds. [7385]

  Mr. Moss
  Business in the Community Northern Ireland was established in 1989 and currently has 175 business members. BIC (NI) seeks to develop the involvement of businesses in the economic and social regeneration of disadvantaged urban and rural areas.

  Given the emphasis on community participation under sub-programme 6—district partnerships of the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation—it is envisaged that BIC (NI) will facilitate the nominations of business representatives to the Northern Ireland Partnership Board in consultation with the three primary organisations representative of business, namely the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and the Institute of Directors (NI).

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8032]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information relating to the Departments of Finance and Personnel, Economic Development, Agriculture and Education, and partial information relating to the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  Mobile phones supplied

  Number of suppliers

  1988–89

  21

  2

  1989–90

  5

  1

  1990–91

  10

  3

  1991–92

  8

  2

  1992–931

  58

  5

  1993–941

  48

  3

  1994–951

  61

  4

  1995–961

  73

  4

  1Information from Northern Ireland Office available from 1992–93 to 1995–96 only.

  Annual information relating to the Departments of the Environment and Health and Social Services could be provided only at disproportionate cost; however, they have purchased a total of 259 mobile phones from three suppliers over the last eight years.

  Emergency Legislation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Mr. John Rowe QC will be making further reports on the working of(a) the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) act 1978 and (b) the prevention of terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. [8524]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not my intention to ask John Rowe QC to carry out a report on the operation in 1995 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, given that the successor legislation is undergoing its parliamentary stages. The question of a report on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 falls to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As my right hon. and learned Friend stated in the House on 9 January 1996,Official Report column 33, we understand that Mr Rowe has been asked to report on the operation of that Act in 1995.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the Government have commissioned to conduct their review of emergency legislation; what assistance that person will receive from others; what are the terms of reference; and when the reviewing body is expected to report. [8482]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading of Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 9 January 1996,Official Report, columns 31–39.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which amendments accepted by the Government in respect of the workings of the emergency provisions legislation were suggested by(a) Lord

  413
  Gardiner, (b) Sir George Baker, (c) Lord Colville and (d) Mr. John Rowe QC. [8523]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following proposed amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill were recommended by(a) Lord Gardiner; (b) Sir George Baker; (c) Lord Colville and (d) John Rowe QC in their respective command papers:
  Changes to schedule 1 by making offences under sections 8 and 10 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969—robbery and aggravated burglary—capable of being certified out: Baker and Rowe.
  Take provision of more flexible scheme for time limits on remand under clause 8: Rowe.
  The creation of an offence of failing to stop for a search under clause 20: Rowe.
  Changing the authority for searches from Chief Inspector to Inspector in clauses 20 and 23: Rowe.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) guidelines and (b) other advice has been issued by his Department regarding the extension of the private finance initiative to the operation of health services. [9080]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of Health and Social Services has issued a capital investment manual incorporating guidelines and advice on the private finance initiative in line with the national health service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which capital projects are currently being considered under the private finance initiative; and what is the cost of each project. [9056]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Projects are being considered in the areas of water and sewage, transport, roads, health education and information technology. With the exception of the initial water and sewerage projects, which have an estimated value of £20–25 million, it is too early to provide an estimate of costs for other projects.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the system for cold weather payments. [8079]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans for major changes to the scheme. However, after the end of March each year, we review the operation of the scheme over the previous winter with the Meteorological Office. In particular, we look at the links between weather stations and postcode areas and, as a result. minor adjustments are made.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times each of the weather monitoring stations across the United Kingdom have triggered the system of cold weather payments since the last time that the map was revised. [8649]
  414
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  For information about Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Weather station

  Number of triggers

  Chivenor

  0

  Culdrose

  0

  Herstmonceaux

  0

  Manston

  0

  Mumbles

  0

  Southampton

  0

  St. Mawgan

  0

  Tiree

  0

  Valley

  0

  Aberporth

  1

  Aughton

  1

  Birmingham

  1

  Boscombe Down

  1

  Boulmer

  1

  Bournemouth

  1

  Cilfynydd

  1

  Coltishall

  1

  Dunkeswell

  1

  Eskmeals

  1

  Gatwick

  1

  Heathrow

  1

  Leeds

  1

  Machrihanish

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Rhoose

  1

  Stornoway

  1

  Tynemouth

  1

  Waddington

  1

  Yeovilton

  1

  Aberdeen

  2

  Bedford

  2

  Brize Norton

  2

  Capel Curig

  2

  Carlisle

  2

  Dumfries (including Whithorn)

  2

  Easthampstead

  2

  Edinburgh

  2

  Eskdalemuir

  2

  Glasgow

  2

  Kinloss

  2

  Kirkwall

  2

  Leeming

  2

  Lerwick

  2

  Leuchars

  2

  Lyneham

  2

  Marham

  2

  Shawbury

  2

  Stanstead

  2

  Tulloch Bridge

  2

  Wattisham

  2

  Whitby

  2

  Wick

  2

  Wilsden

  2

  Aviemore

  3

  Braemar

  3

  1. The network of 55 weather stations was updated for the start of the 1995–96 scheme, effective from 1 November 1995.

  2. The information relates to Great Britain only.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received respecting the system for cold weather payments during the most recent period of inclement weather; and if he will make a statement. [9269]
  415
  Mr. Evans
  Since 21 December, my right hon. Friend has been asked nine parliamentary questions and received 22 pieces of correspondence about this matter.

  Setting-up Home Grant
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to include a setting-up home grant financed through the social fund for the benefit of homeless people. [8261]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Government have no plans to change the broad principles of the discretionary social fund, which we believe uses available resources effectively to help large numbers of people who are most in need. Community care grants and interest-free loans from the social fund are made to many people establishing themselves in a permanent home in the community. In April 1995, we introduced additional guidance advising social fund officers to give particular consideration to helping vulnerable or recently homeless people moving to permanent accommodation to remain in the community if there was a danger that they might otherwise go into care.

  We believe it would be a backward step to reintroduce a system of mandatory grants akin to the previous single payment scheme, which was open to abuse and spiralling expenditure.

  Institutional Discrimination
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow of 22 November relating to institutional discrimination listed by his Department between men and women for social security benefit purposes. [9178]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 January,Official Report, column 326.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the limit which currently applies to the funeral payment from the social fund towards funeral director's fees. [8584]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Like other social fund payments, funeral payments are not subject to the annual uprating of income-related benefits. However, we keep the level of

  £ million

  Earmarking

  Pension-splitting

  1997

  2020

  1997

  2020

  Costs to unfunded public service schemes

  0

  0

  500

  less than 50

  Loss in tax revenue and increased tax relief

  0

  0

  negligible

  80

  Income related benefits

  negligible

  -50

  negligible

  -70

  Legal Aid and court costs

  up to 130

  n/a

  up to 120

  n/a

  1. Costs to unfunded public service schemes are rounded to the nearest £100 million in 1997.

  2. All other costs are rounded to ther nearest £10 million.

  3. A minus sign denotes a saving to the Exchequer.

  4. Estimates are for full year costs. at constant prices.
  416
  all social fund payments, including the ceiling placed on the amount allowable for funeral directors' fees, under review.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the average cost for the services of funeral directors when calculating the limit which applies to funeral payments from the social fund; [8588]

  (2) what criteria underlay the calculation of the £500 limit on the funeral payment from the social fund payable towards funeral directors' fees. [8582]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 9 January 1995,Official Report, columns 160–61.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to the limit on the amount payable from the social fund for funeral payments toward funeral directors' fees in the last 10 years. [8583]

  Mr. Evans
  From 1980 to 1987, supplementary benefit single payments regulations provided for payment of an unlimited amount sufficient to meet the reasonable cost of any specified essential expenses for the funeral director's fees which fell to be met by the responsible person. This provision was carried forward to the social fund in 1987 and remained unchanged until 5 June 1995, when a ceiling of £500 on the amount allowable for specified funeral directors' fees for a dignified social fund funeral was introduced.

  Divorce
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the net cost to the public purse of(a) earmarking and (b) pension-splitting, in the event of divorce; and what are the main component parts of the costs. [9481]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  There would also be extra administration costs for public service schemes. If the state earnings-related pension scheme was spilt, this would result in additional costs.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, will reply in writing in respect of the legal aid and court costs of both earmarking and pension splitting in the year 2020 as the information is not immediately available.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9227]

  Mr. Burt
  A brief guide to the Disability Discrimination Act was issued in November 1995 and further information material on the provisions of the Act will follow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is currently consulting on a draft code of practice relating to the employment provisions in the Act and statutory guidance related to the definition of disability. Consultation on proposals for regulations under the education, employment and definition provisions of the Act is also currently under way. I will be asking the National Disability Council, when it first meets, to produce and consult on a code of practice relating to the rights of access to goods and services. At the same time, we shall consult on associated regulations. All these items will be published in plenty of time to allow employers and service providers to prepare themselves for the introduction of the new rights and duties. We will ensure that this Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

DEFENCE

  Former Yugoslavia (Vessels)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and tonnage of all British-registered ships hired for NATO/UN operations in the former Yugoslavia and the names and tonnage of all non-British vessels with their country of registration; and if he will make a statement. [7767]

  Mr. Soames
  The names, tonnages and country of registration of (dry cargo) vessels chartered, are as follows. Details are given by financial year.

  Non-British vessels chartered for NATO/UN operations in former Yugoslavia

  Name

  Tonnage (dwt)

  Flag

  FY 1992–93

  Bassro Star

  5,586

  Norwegian

  Belvaux

  5,064

  Luxembourg

  Maersk Kent

  12,788

  Bahamas

  Maria J

  6,028

  German

  Via Tirreno

  7,324

  Italian

  Mercandian Duke

  7,200

  Danish

  Nornews Service

  3,930

  Norwegian

  Rheiderland

  3,936

  German

  Rosa Dan

  14,000

  Danish

  Santa Maria

  3,670

  German

  Sea Bird

  4,270

  Danish

  Sophie

  3,217

  Danish

  FY 1993–94

  Mercandian Duke

  7,200

  Danish

  Belvaux

  5,064

  Luxembourg

  Nornews Service

  3,930

  Norwegian

  Arroyofrio Dos

  5,080

  Spanish

  Alster Rapid

  2,515

  German

  418

  Non-British vessels chartered for NATO/UN operations in former Yugoslavia

  Name

  Tonnage (dwt)

  Flag

  FY 1994–95

  Alster Rapid

  2,515

  German

  Bassro Star

  5,586

  Spanish

  Mercandian Prince II

  7,200

  Danish

  FY 1995–96 (up to 3 January 1996)

  Neptune Olympic (Twice)

  7,200

  Greek

  Mercandian Senator

  7,200

  Danish

  Yuriy Maksaryov (Twice)

  17,773

  Ukranian

  None of these vessels is British registered. We charter on the international market through the Baltic exchange and all ship owners have equal opportunity to compete in open competition for MOD business.

  In addition to these vessels chartered, the United States Military Sealift Command loaned two vessels free of charge and a further two vessels on repayment, during the current financial year. We were also able to use a UN chartered and funded vessel at no cost to the MOD.

  Overseas Training Assistance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries in which British military personnel have provided training assistance during the past five years. [8571]

  Mr. Soames
  Available records show that UK military personnel provided training assistance in the following countries between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995:

  Albania

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda1

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados1

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Cayman Islands

  Chile

  Colombia

  Dominica1

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Estonia2

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada1

  Hong Kong

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  419

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia2

  Lesotho

  Lithuania2

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Peru

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Rwanda

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Kitts Nevis1

  St. Lucia1

  St. Vincent1

  Swaziland

  Thailand

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  1Trained by a team based in Barbados.

  2Collective training in Latvia.

  This list covers those countries to which short-term training teams have been sent, as well as those countries in which we have resident loan service personnel or longer term British military advisory and training teams. A short-term training team also deployed to Puerto Rico to assist US forces in training the combined Caribbean community and common market contingent—comprising detachments from Jamaica, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago—and also contingents from Bangladesh and Guatemala to prepare them for operations with the multinational force in Haiti. In addition, forces on exercise overseas often provide limited training to, or train alongside, the armed forces of the host nation. A central record of such training is not, however, maintained.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries whose military forces have been provided with training facilities in the United Kingdom during the past five years. [8572]
  420
  Mr. Soames
  Available records show that military personnel from the following countries were given training in the UK between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995:

  Albania

  Algeria

  Anguilla

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Chad

  Chile

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Estonia

  Falkland Islands

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Republic of Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  421

  Kenya

  Republic of Korea

  Kuwait

  Kyrgyzstan

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Moldova

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Paraguay

  Philippines

  Poland

  Peru

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Kitts Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  USA

  UAE

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  422

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  Meat Purchases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much meat was purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; how much of this was British meat in 1995; and if he will list the other countries from which he purchases meat, together with the quantity of meat. [8987]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1 October 1994, when the Ministry of Defence food supply contract commenced, NAAFI has purchased meat for my Department. Before that date the Ministry purchased meat direct. The value of meat purchased for the last five financial years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Purchased by MOD

  Purchased by NAAFI

  1990–91

  34.290

  —

  1991–92

  30.122

  —

  1992–93

  30.581

  —

  1993–94

  30.376

  —

  1994–95

  115.664

  213.877

  1April to September 1994.

  2October to March 1995.

  During calendar year 1995 my Department bought £8.6 million British meat from NAAFI and £19.861 million overseas meat from NAAFI. NAAFI procures meat from wholesalers and importers on the open market to obtain the best possible price. The source of each cut of meat therefore varies from month to month, however, all pork, boned and rolled sirloin, beef diced, beef mince and ox liver have always been United Kingdom sourced. NAAFI does not have detailed records of how much meat has been procured from each overseas source, but the countries most commonly used are: Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Denmark, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Eire, France and Chile.

  This information applies to beef, pork, lamb, poultry, gammon, offal, veal, rabbit, goat, and bacon but not to manufactured products such as sausages, pasties or burgers.

  Gulf War (Low Flying)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of low-level attacks by British aircraft during the Gulf war; what changes to low-level flying operations were made during the war; and if he will state the reasons for these changes. [8991]

  Mr. Soames
  In the initial stages of the air campaign Tornado GR1 s carried out low-level attacks against Iraqi airfields. These were established RAF tactics designed to allow attacking aircraft to delay detection by hostile radars and to minimise the effectiveness of air and ground defences, particularly when on missions against heavily defended targets. Moreover, the JP233 airfield denial
  423
  weapon, an important element of plans to disrupt Iraqi air operations, was designed to be delivered at low level. It was always the intention that attacks would in due course be switched to medium level and this decision was taken by the operational commanders on day four of the campaign once it became clear that the task of grounding the Iraqi air force had been achieved and that, with the substantial degradation of the Iraqi air defence system, the threat to operations at medium level was much reduced.

  The lessons of the Gulf war have been extensively evaluated. The principal lessons were set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992" and further evidence was provided to the Defence Select Committee in connection with its report on the implementation of the lessons learned from Operation Granby. In respect of low flying, the conflict demonstrated the need to provide a more flexible capability for the full spectrum of operational environments. The need for low-level flying nevertheless remains. In many scenarios it is critical to the success of operations and the special skills required cannot be acquired at short notice.

  Army Ambulances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that new ambulances for the Army are locally sourced. [9455]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on 9 January,Official Report, column 3.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how frequently Army ambulances are replaced. [9457]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The last major procurement of Army ambulances was made between 1980 and 1983.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ambulances are currently operated by the Army; and when the ambulance fleet is due for replacement. [9458]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Army currently operates 858 ambulances which are due for replacement over the next four years.

  Chemical and Biological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what collaboration has occurred in the field of chemical and, biological warfare as a result of the mutual defence assistance programme between Britain and the United States of America. [7306]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No reference has been found in the records available to such a programme.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instructing the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to hold records centrally on the annual amount it spends on overseas travel; and if he will make a statement. [8433]
  424
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No. The delegation of authority for expenditure on overseas travel to managers within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's business sectors conforms fully with my Department's financial management procedures and I see no reason to interfere with the chief executive's arrangements for managing the agency.

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instructing the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency to hold records centrally on the annual amount it spends on overseas travel; and if he will make a statement. [8432]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No. The delegation of authority for expenditure on overseas travel to managers within the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency conforms fully with my Department's financial management procedures and I see no reason to interfere with the chief executive's arrangements for managing the agency.

  Dr. al-Masari
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates he was asked directly or indirectly, formally or otherwise. by the Saudi authorities about the presence in the United Kingdom of Dr. al-Masari; and what response he gave on each occasion. [9173]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The presence and activities of Dr. al-Masari in the UK have been raised by the Saudi authorities on a number of occasions. The Saudis have been told that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of Dr. al-Masari's activities, and that he would be treated strictly in accordance with UK and international law.

  Torture
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice and training is provided to British troops to withstand the effects of psychological torture. [9010]

  Mr. Soames
  Conduct after capture training is made available to those personnel most vulnerable to capture in time of war or other crisis.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on allegations of torture made by British service personnel while hostages of Serbian forces. [8650]

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the allegations of psychological torture of British troops taken hostage in Bosnia; and what assessment he has made of their accuracy. [9009]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence that the British service personnel who were taken hostage by the Bosnian Serbs in May 1995 were physically tortured or subjected to a campaign of psychological abuse. While the conditions in which they were held were far from ideal, they were generally treated satisfactorily. However, in an isolated incident, one British soldier had a threat made against his life by his captors. This was totally unacceptable conduct by the Bosnian Serbs and we
  425
  strongly condemn it. All UK hostages were debriefed on their release and reports have been forwarded to the UN war crimes tribunal which is investigating the detention of UN personnel.

  Land Mines, Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel are involved in the implementation force de-mining effort in Bosnia; and what form of training they have received; [9003]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the progress of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia; and if it is running to schedule; [8986]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the problems posed by land mines placed in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [9001]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK's contribution to IFOR includes 42 service personnel who are specially trained in explosive ordnance disposal. Their role is, however, limited to monitoring and co-ordinating the programme for the clearance of mines and related deices, except where there is a serious threat to life or where clearance is necessary to allow IFOR to complete assigned tasks. Otherwise, under the terms of the peace agreement, clearance is the responsibility of the consenting parties themselves. They are required to complete clearance within the zones of separation by 19 January. The work is in progress, although efforts are being hampered by poor weather and incomplete minefield records.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel have been injured as(a) a direct and (b) an indirect consequence of land mines placed in Bosnian territory; [8984]

  (2) how many service personnel have been injured as part of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia. [9005]

  Mr. Soames
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, since operations began in the former Yugoslavia, three British service personnel have been killed and eight seriously injured in mine explosions, none of these during IFOR's operations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of the IFOR de-mining effort in Bosnia. [9004]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to identify separately the estimated cost of IFOR's monitoring and co-ordinating of the mine clearance programme which is itself the responsibility of the parties to the peace agreement.

  Ministerial Visit (Philippines)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and designations of the civilian and military officials he met during his recent visit to the Philippines; and if he will make a statement on the defence agreement made with that country. [8569]

  Mr. Portillo
  During my visit to the Philippines which was hosted by the Secretary for National Defence, Mr. de Villa, I had a meeting with President Ramos and met, during official calls at the Department for National Defence and military establishments, the Under Secretary, General Gacis, the Chief of Staff, General Enrile, the 426
  commanding generals of the army and air force, Lieutenant General Soriano and Lieutenant General Acedera, and acting Flag Officer in Command of the Philippine navy, Commodore Santos, together with members of their staffs and other senior officers. I also met Mr. Gordon, the chairman and administrator of the Subic Bay metropolitan authority and members of his staff.

  I was pleased to sign a defence co-operation memorandum of understanding with Secretary de Villa which will strengthen our defence relations through, for example, exchange visits and joint military exercises.

  De-mining Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the de-mining equipment possessed by his Department. [8988]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The primary requirement of the armed forces is to clear a path through minefield obstacles rather than to clear whole minefields. The following types of equipment are held by the United Kingdom armed forces to meet this requirement:

  Mineploughs

  Scatterable Mine Clearance Device

  Giant Viper (explosive hose)

  MIMIC (countermeasure for magnetic influence mines)

  Hand held mine detectors

  Prodders and hand held tools

  Mine and route markers

  Wheelbarrow (remote control vehicle).

  Where mines have been located and marked for subsequent clearance, disposal is usually carried out using a standard demolition charge. In certain circumstances, small arms fire is used.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which de-mining projects his Department funds world wide. [9006]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Government support for de-mining programmes throughout the world is provided through the Overseas Development Administration. In this context, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 742.

  Turnstile House
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about his Department's plans to demolish Turnstile house, London; and when this proposal was agreed; [9007]

  (2) how much was spent by his Department on the refurbishment of Turnstile house, London; and when this refurbishment was conducted. [9008]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has no plans to demolish Turnstile house. The building was vacated in September 1994 and shortly afterwards it was returned to the commercial landlord.
  427
  No money was spent by my Department on Turnstile house beyond that for routine maintenance and decoration. In the more recent years before the building was vacated, my Department paid the following amounts under the terms of its occupancy agreement.

  £ thousand 1992–93

  £ thousand 1993–94

  £ thousand 1994–95

  Annual maintenance contribution

  390

  403

  224

  Minor works repairs and decorations

  150

  133

  35

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy in respect of the targeting of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent at any particular country; and when this policy was first published. [9161]

  Mr. Soames
  In line with the joint announcement made at the Prime Minister's meeting with President Yeltsin on 15 February 1994, all United Kingdom nuclear missiles are detargeted.

  Trident Submarines (Refitting)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's estimate of the cost of refitting Trident submarines at Devonport under(a) a privatised company and (b) the current management team; [8982]

  (2) when he will sign the contract with Devonport Management Ltd for the refitting of Trident submarines. [8983]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Negotiations for the design and build of the facilities for refitting Vanguard class and ultimately all nuclear powered submarines at Devonport are proceeding. A decision on contract award is expected in the first part of this year. Parallel negotiations on the sale of both royal dockyards continue. The objective is to put in place the most financially beneficial long term arrangements for all Royal Navy ship refitting work. It would not be appropriate to speculate about details while negotiations are under way.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how, many cracks have been discovered in the hulls of his Department's type 23 frigates; when these cracks were discovered; on what ships they have been discovered; when his Department was warned that cracks could appear; what actions were taken by his Department following this advice; how much it will cost to repair the damage; and if he will make a statement. [8990]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Cracking in an intricate steel structure such as a warship, subjected to randomly varying sealoads, is not unusual. The cracking itself is not usually a matter for immediate concern, but any occurrence is assessed and kept under review until the next convenient opportunity for repairs.
  428
  During the construction of HMS Norfolk, the first type 23 frigate, the need for stiffening in part of the deck structure was identified using previously untried techniques. The construction of Norfolk was too far advanced for the full design change to he incorporated at that time but it was done during her first programmed docking period in 1993. All subsequent ships of the class were built with this modification included. The total estimated cost of incorporating this modification into the whole class is about £1 million.

  Minor steelwork cracking has occurred in some subsequent type 23 frigates, but this has not been assessed as requiring special action. Repairs have been carried out as part of the normal ship upkeep measures and the costs have not been separately identified.

  At no time has the safety of any of the type 23 frigates or their crews been at risk.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by his Department on behalf of Ministers and ex-Ministers; and if he will name the individuals concerned; [8755]

  (2) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by the Department on behalf of current and past (a) civil servants and (b) advisers and secondees. [8746]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The value of legal services charged by the Treasury Solicitor's Department together with accounts settled to date from public funds for the provision of external legal services, incurred on behalf of Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants and former civil servants of my Department in connection with the Scott inquiry is £215,862. No legal costs have been incurred on behalf of other advisors or secondees. The cost of any advice in connection with the Scott inquiry given by Government lawyers as part of their normal duties cannot be quantified. It is not the Government's policy to identify the individuals who have received legal advice, either directly or indirectly.

  Japanese Forces (Training)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment of British interests underlay his invitation to members of the Japanese armed forces to train in the United Kingdom; how many personnel will be involved; at what cost to British public funds; what representations he has received in respect of this matter; what have been the nature of such representations; and if he will make a statement. [8575]

  Mr. Portillo
  I issued no such invitation. However, I expect that small numbers of Japanese officers will continue to receive training in Britain as they have since 1977. My Department has received a small number of representations from members of the public, expressing general concern about defence relations with Japan.

  F16 Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the proposal
  429
  to lease American F16 aircraft; and when he expects to announce his decision to the House. [8989]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is currently evaluating a proposal to upgrade the Tornado F3's weapons systems. As a routine part of our evaluation process, we are examining the comparative costs of alternative options, including acquiring F16 aircraft from the United States. We expect to take a decision on whether or not to proceed with the Tornado F3 upgrade by the end of the current financial year. Any procurement decisions will be announced to the House in the usual way.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters are routinely addressed in the course of considering applications for defence export licences. [9272]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In assessing export licence applications, consideration is given to our national security, our policy towards the recipient country and our international obligations including the established criteria and guidelines agreed by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council; with the European Union member states and in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Supplies (Local Sourcing)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that supplies for the British armed forces are, so far as is possible under EU regulations, locally sourced and create local employment. [9482]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We aim wherever possible and in accordance with our obligations under EU regulations to purchase all major equipment and services for the British armed forces by competitive tender to secure best value for money for the taxpayer. As a result, over 90 per cent. of our business is awarded to United Kingdom industry. In addition, low-value purchases by MOD units and establishments of minor equipment and services, which are not generally subject to the EU regulations, also make an important contribution to local employment and economies. In 1994–95, expenditure on such local purchases totalled approximately £200 million.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the Gulf war there was an assessed threat of possible chemical agent attack which necessitated orders being given to service personnel to take nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets. [9604]

  Mr. Soames
  During the conduct of Operation Granby, which ran from 9 August 1990 to 11 April 1991, the assessed threat of chemical weapon attack in the theatre of operations was regarded as sufficiently high to necessitate the issuing of orders for nerve agent pre-treatment—NAPS—tablets to be taken during the period from 18 January 1991. following the start of the air war, to 1 March 1991, when hostilities ceased. The 430
  orders applied to all units and personnel in, or deploying into, theatre.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies; and if he will make a statement. [9146]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are the responsibility of the chief executives of the Defence Agencies. I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the safeguarding of the provision of pre-retirement courses as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of this Agency.
  We are not seeking to make economies in this area and I am taking positive action to safeguard any entitlement to pre-retirement courses which Service personnel of this Agency have.

  Letter from P. Niedzwiedzki to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  REFERENCE:
  A. PQ REFERENCE: 9883G
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of pre-retirement courses as this area falls within the area of responsibility of the Chief Executive of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Agency.
  SCS(NWE) staff are eligible to apply for places on MOD pre-retirement courses. Course places are arranged and approved by CM(Welfare) and the courses themselves are usually held in the UK. Participant's travel and subsistence expenses are met by the Agency. There is a regular uptake of such courses by SCS(NWE) staff.
  The Agency's Framework Document confirms that welfare services are one of a range of central services provided by the MOD to the Agency. SCS(NWE) expects the current level of welfare support, including pre-retirement sources, to be continued without diminution.

  Letter from Colonel A. H. Roach to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC).
  The DAC has no intention, either now or in the future, of seeking to economise on the provision of pre-retirement courses to eligible military or civilian personnel.

  Letter front Paul Altobell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY NUMBER 9883G
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about pre-retirement courses as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA).
  DASA has no plans to take special action in respect of pre-retirement courses. It is our custom to follow the lead of our parent department, the Ministry of Defence, in these matters.
  431
  Letter from Brigadier A. W. Pollard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION (PQ9883G—THE PROVISION OF PRE-RETIREMENT COURSES TO AGENCY PERSONNEL
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what action I am taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency (LISA).
  All of my military staff who reach the end of their careers while serving at LISA are entitled to the normal resettlement facilities offered by the Services. My civilian staff have the same access as that enjoyed by other Civil Servants to a comprehensive programme of pre-retirement courses.
  I am keen to preserve the entitlement in both cases and, in my Agency, they would be unlikely targets for saving measures.

  Letter front J. R. Prince to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—ARMY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGENCY
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of Agencies seeking to make economies as this matter falls in my area of responsibility.
  The number of staff reaching retirement age in the Army Technical Support Agency in any one year is small, as are the costs associated with pre-retirement training courses. I regard pre-retirement training as an important part of preparing loyal Agency staff for retirement and, as such, would not expect to include such training in any economy exercise.

  Letter from R. H. Embleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  In the absence on duty of the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses.
  I regard the provision of pre-retirement courses as important. All military and civilian staff of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency are encouraged to attend such courses as they may be eligible, and entitled to under MOD regulations. I have no plans to change this situation.

  Letter from Rear Admiral J. H. S. McAnally to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of agency economies, in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA).
  All but the most senior (CDS) Naval personnel leave the Royal Navy before the national retirement age. In order to assist them in preparing for, and identifying a suitable second career in civilian life, they are eligible to undertake a variety of pre-release resettlement (pre-retirement) training.
  The provision of resettlement training is the responsibility of the tri-Service Resettlement Organisation (TSRO) which does not form part of the NRTA. However, as Chief Executive of the NRTA, I am publicly committed in the Agency Corporate Plan "to meet the Personnel Functional Standards in respect of Service Personnel and, where appropriate, adopt similar principles for civilian employees." Personnel Functional Standards are a set of mandatory and common standards that are applied to all RN personnel wherever they are serving. The Standards may not be amended without the approval of the Navy Board. An appropriate Personnel Functional standard exists for the provision of resettlement training.
  In view of the foregoing, if it should be necessary to seek economies from within the agency, the provision of resettlement courses should not be affected.
  432
  Letter from Air Vice-Marshal R. H. Kyle to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of Defence Agencies seeking to make economies because this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency (RAF MGDA).
  All retiring MOD Civil Servants employed within the RAF MGDA have the opportunity to attend a pre-retirement course; this would normally take place within their last 12 months of service. I recognise this as a most valuable contribution to preparing staff for retirement and it is not a provision which would suffer as a result of any economy measure within the RAF MGDA. To reinforce this I shall be including an appropriate commitment in the RAF MGDA Civilian Training Plan.

  Letter front Keith Ellender to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of pre-retirement courses as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  The provision of pre-retirement courses for staff in my Agency comes from central Ministry of Defence funds, in the same way that it used to before agency status was achieved.

  Letter front Brian Raine to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School.
  I attach considerable importance to pre-retirement courses and staff are invited to apply for such courses conducted by either the Civil Service Council for Further Education or Local Education Authorities. This Agency has not sought, and currently has no plans to seek, economies in this area.
  If you have any further questions about this do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from D. A. Thomas to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about pre-retirement courses on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency as this matters falls within his area of responsibility.
  The Defence Accounts Agency will continue to ensure that all eligible staff have the opportunity to attend pre-retirement courses. Currently, provision within the Agency is normally by the MOD Welfare Service, but, if necessary, courses are also arranged locally on site or externally. Irrespective of any future proposed economy measures, it is not intended that these arrangements should be altered.

  Letter from Captain W. S. Graham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on what action is taken within the 'Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO)' to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO.

  2. Personnel have the opportunity to attend pre-retirement courses in Portsmouth Naval Base. There are 4 per year.

  3. In the event that they were stopped, we would organise our own, either by using in-house training facilities or contractors.

  Letter front P. A. James to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying, on behalf of the Chief Executive of Military Survey Defence Agency (who is on duty in Germany) to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision

  433
  of pre-retirement courses in Executive Agencies, as this matter falls within the Chief Executive's area of responsibility and I am his deputy.
  Military Survey supports the continued use of pre-retirement courses run by the Ministry of Defence.
  Military Survey has always encouraged personnel to attend pre-retirement courses. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Letter from Brigadier M. G. R. Hodson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question (PQ9883G) to the Secretary of State for Defence, about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency (DTMX).
  For civil servants, pre-retirement courses are carried out centrally and continue to be available to Agency staff. Courses are normally offered 6 months before retirement and there are no plans to restrict their availability.
  For Service personnel, resettlement courses, which are comprehensive and available to all military in their last two years of service, and are designed to provide training for a second career, continue to be provided. There are no plans to limit eligibility.
  I trust that this answers your concerns. Please be assured that I will always act in the best interests of my staff, both civilian and military.

  Letter from Brigadier M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of pre-retirement courses.
  As the Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA), I can confirm that my Agency will continue to offer all eligible staff the opportunity of attending pre-retirement courses. I do not foresee a situation arising which would cause me to change this policy.
  If I can be of further help to you, please let me know.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about pre-retirement courses as, for the staff of the Meterological Office, this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The Meterological Office offers a pre-retirement course to all staff. I have no intention of changing this practice.

  Letter from Air Commodore P. C. Ayee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what actions heads of executive agencies were taking to safeguard pre-retirement courses, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency.
  The cost of pre-retirement courses do not fall to the Agency. Pre-retirement courses for civil servants are funded directly from MOD central funds, and resettlement courses for service personnel are funded by the RAF Personnel and Training Command. Thus, any Agency economies would not affect the provision of such courses.

  Letter from M. R. Pack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  Your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about pre-retirement courses for staff in his agencies has been referred to the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office. Unfortunately Admiral Essenhigh is at present absent from the Office on official duty so I am replying to you on his behalf.
  It is the policy of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency to offer pre-retirement courses to all employees who are approaching retirement. These pre-retirement courses are conducted by the
  434
  Somerset College of Arts and Technology which is based in Taunton. There is no intention that this policy should be changed in any way.
  It is recognised by the senior management of the Hydrographic Office that these courses provide a very valuable service in assisting staff to cope better with the transition to the different lifestyle which retirement brings.
  I hope this information has been of assistance.

  Letter from Air Commodore A. A. Nicholson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about safeguarding the provision of pre-retirement courses in executive agencies, insofar as this bears on my own responsibilities for the Training Group Defence Agency.
  I can confirm that this Agency is not seeking to make economies by reducing the provision of pre-retirement courses; and that I maintain a close interest in any proposed changes beyond the Agency's boundaries, which might affect my personnel in this respect.
  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel & Training Command.

  Letter from Brigadier K. J. W. Goad to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA), I reply to your question, to the Secretary of State for Defence, about pre-retirement courses within Defence Agencies.
  Pre-retirement courses for both military and civilian ABSDA staff are funded centrally by the MoD. Within the Agency, staff are actively encouraged to make full use of redundancy counselling, outplacement services and pre-retirement courses. I can state, categorically, that ABSDA is not seeking to make economies in this area.
  I trust that I have fully answered your enquiry; if not, please come back to me.

  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Drew to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about pre-retirement courses, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  There have been no changes in the policy on pre-retirement courses since ABRO was established as a Defence Agency in April 1993. In accordance with central Ministry of Defence (MOD) policy, all staff have the opportunity to attend one pre-retirement course, which should take place during the last 12 months of service, to ensure that the information given, particularly on pensions and financial matters, is current. Where possible the arrangements are tailored to suit the individual. MOD pre-retirement courses are available either locally or in London, but in some cases individuals opt for courses at nearby colleges.
  Staff leaving ABRO on early retirement or redundancy may take advantage of the MOD Outplacement Scheme (MODOPS), which provides a more extensive range of training and guidance than the standard pre-retirement courses. In the last 6 months some 53 ABRO employees have retired or been made redundant. Not all choose to attend a pre-retirement course, and in cases of medical retirement this often proves impractical. During that 6-month period, however, 21 have attended courses at their local college, 6 have attended local MOD pre-retirement courses and 7 have benefitted from the MOD Outplacement arrangements.
  There are no plans to change existing arrangements.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  435
  In DERA, despite a significant cost reduction programme, our policy on retirement is unchanged and pre-retirement courses continue to be provided for employees. The provision of such courses has been delegated to business sectors, but if the numbers of retirees does not merit a sector specific event, then individuals may be nominated to a central scheme.
  Clearly DERA is always striving to improve it's efficiency and the cost effectiveness of all services, including the provision of pre-retirement courses is subject to regular review. However, it is our intention to continue to provide these courses since they are undoubtedly helpful to individuals approaching retirement since they provide guidance and help in making the transition.
  I hope this information is helpful.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by his Department on behalf of Ministers and ex-Ministers; and if he will name the individuals concerned; [8753]

  (2) what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by the Department on behalf of current and past (a) civil servants and (b) advisers and secondees. [8748]

  The Attorney-General
  The legal costs paid to date for the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of issues arising from the Scott inquiry amount to £71,541. This sum covers advice obtained on behalf of Ministers and civil servants, both current and past. The costs of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's department providing legal services to client Departments in connection with the inquiry, are included in charges invoiced to Departments. Some legal advice has also been provided by departmental lawyers as part of their normal duties. The total cost of this advice is not quantifiable. It is not the Government's policy to identify the individuals who have received legal advice, either directly or indirectly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Advertising Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department (b) agencies (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6559]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  MAFF advertisements have appeared in the following national and regional newspapers, periodicals and magazines during the period 1990 to 1995. The lists by title represent a wide range of promotional activities designed to communicate essential or useful information to the trade—farmers and growers concerning a variety of EU or other schemes and codes of good agricultural practice—and to the general public, particularly consumers regarding food safety and nutrition. The costs shown are media costs only and do not include VAT or other production costs. Press 436
  advertising by MAFF agencies is the responsibility of their chief executives. I have asked them to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  1995–96 (up to 13 December 1995)

  £

  Arable Farming

  2,502

  Bella

  55,500

  Bella Favourites

  1,350

  Best

  36,000

  Bounty Babycare Guide

  12,706

  Bournemouth Evening Echo

  262

  British Farmer

  3,569

  Chat

  28,000

  Dairy Farmer and D Beef Prod

  1,633

  Estates Gazette

  747

  Famers Guardian

  1,579

  Farmers Weekly

  12,761

  Farming News

  10,006

  Farming News

  4,701

  London Gazette

  150

  Lymington Times

  72

  Mother and Baby

  11,600

  Parents

  7,600

  Scottish Farmer

  290

  Sheep Farmer

  567

  Southern Evening Echo

  361

  Take A Break

  60,500

  Times Educational Supplement

  1,454

  Woman

  33,600

  Womans Own

  27,000

  Total

  314,509

  1994–95

  £

  British Farmer

  735

  Daily Mail

  12,960

  Environmental Health News

  683

  Family Circle

  11,300

  Farmers Guardian

  2,352

  Farmers Weekly

  9,754

  Farmers News

  5,138

  Farming News

  2,520

  Guardian

  8,208

  Independent

  7,000

  Meat Trades Journal

  542

  Nature

  5,767

  New Scientist

  10,470

  Port Health Authorities Handbook

  572

  Prima

  22,000

  Radio Times

  16,000

  Readers Digest

  2,500

  Sheep Farmer

  601

  Total

  119,101

  1993–94

  £

  Aldershot News and Mail

  529

  Basingstoke Gazette

  448

  Bath (and West Evening) Chronicle

  346

  Bedfordshire Times

  311

  Berwick Advertiser

  294

  Birmingham Post

  469

  British Farmer

  2,205

  British Farmer

  1,790

  Cambridge Evening News

  387

  Chester Chronicle

  352

  Chichester Observer

  230

  Chronicle and Echo (Northampton)

  400

  437

  1993–94

  £

  Cornish Guardian

  273

  Cornish Times

  141

  Cornishman

  103

  Crewe Chronicle

  294

  Cumberland News

  337

  Dairy Farmer and Dairy Beef Producer

  325

  Darlington and Stockton Times

  515

  Darlington Northern Echo

  931

  Derby Evening Telegraph

  567

  Derbyshire Times

  1,626

  Dorset Evening Echo (Weymouth)

  407

  East Anglian Daily Times (Ipswich)

  526

  Eastern Daily Press (Norwich)

  1,090

  Essex Chronicle

  506

  Evening News (Worcester/Hereford)

  419

  Evesham Journal

  335

  Exeter Express and Echo

  378

  Express and Star West Midlands/Shropshire Star

  1,137

  Farmers Guardian

  6,726

  Farmers Weekly

  15,034

  Farming News

  18,086

  Folkestone Herald/Dover Express

  218

  Gloucester Citizen

  551

  Gloucestershire Echo (Cheltenham)

  340

  Greenwich/Woolwich Mercury Ser

  312

  Grimsby Evening Telegraph

  217

  Hampshire Chronicle

  314

  Harrogate Advertiser

  438

  Hastings Observer/Bexhill Observer

  1,092

  Herald Series (Oxford)

  302

  Hereford Time

  415

  Herts Advertiser (St. Albans)

  429

  Herts Mercury

  312

  Hexham Courant

  180

  Hitchin Comet Series

  203

  Horse and Hound

  578

  Hull Daily Mail

  672

  Isle of Wight County Press

  288

  Journal (Newcastle)

  595

  Kent and Sussex Courier

  467

  Kent Messenger

  1,346

  Lancaster Guardian

  256

  Lancaster Evening Post (Preston)

  665

  Leamington Spa (and Warwick) Courier

  351

  Leicester Mercury

  925

  Lincolnshire Echo

  304

  Liverpool Echo

  881

  Loughborough Echo

  269

  Manchester Evening News

  1,510

  Mansfield Chad

  574

  Nature

  2,598

  New Scientist

  4,680

  Newark Advertiser Series

  432

  News Post Leader (South Shields)

  339

  News/World-Sunday Magazine

  21,945

  North Devon Journal (Barnstaple)

  260

  Nottingham Evening Post

  1,643

  Ormskirk Advertiser Group

  194

  Oxford Times

  869

  Peterborough Evening Telegraph

  478

  Pig Farming

  329

  Radio Times

  7,320

  Reading Chronicle

  838

  Salisbury Journal

  551

  Sheffield Star

  1,800

  Shropshire Star

  600

  Somerset County Gazette

  440

  Southern Eve Echo

  399

  Stafford Newsletter

  257

  Stoke Evening Sentinel

  630

  Stratford upon Avon Herald

  258

  Surrey Advertiser

  553

  Surrey Mirror

  319

  438

  1993–94

  £

  Sussex Express

  254

  Telegraph and Argus (Bradford)

  455

  Tiverton Gazette Devon

  176

  Travel Trade Gazette—Europa

  982

  TV Times

  3,939

  Warrington Guardian

  806

  West Briton

  315

  Western Daily Press (Bristol)

  591

  Western Gazette (Somerset)

  503

  Western Morning News (Plymouth)

  462

  Westmorland Gazette

  415

  What's on TV

  5,400

  Wiltshire Gazette and Herald Series

  317

  Yorkshire Evening Press (York)

  987

  Yorkshire Post (Leeds)

  963

  Total

  136,817

  1992–93

  £

  BBC Holidays

  3,652

  Barbara Long Ticket Wallet

  11,813

  Big Farm Weekly

  2,625

  Business Life

  4,523

  Butcher and Processor

  840

  Caterer and Hotelkeeper

  2,495

  Crops

  1,055

  Farmers Guardian

  4,419

  Farmers Weekly

  7,650

  Farming News

  5,760

  Fish Trader

  1,028

  Fishing News

  3,182

  Flower Trades Journal

  525

  Forces News

  525

  Fresh Produce Journal

  1,996

  Garden (The)

  599

  Grocer The

  1,580

  Grower

  1,386

  High Life

  8,385

  Horticulture Week

  1,468

  Lloyds List

  344

  Macmillan/S Cut Nautical Almanac

  655

  Nature

  1,502

  New Scientist

  4,100

  News/World—Sunday Magazine

  45,087

  Nurseryman and Garden Centre

  1,160

  RAF Wives

  457

  Radio Times

  2,560

  Radio Times

  17,940

  RAF News

  486

  Skyscene

  6,300

  SSAFA News

  352

  TV Times

  8,070

  What's on TV

  10,470

  Total

  164,989

  1991–92

  £

  BBC Holidays

  3,478

  BBC Wild Life

  2,118

  Big Farm Weekly

  1,890

  British Homing World

  254

  Chat

  2,127

  Farmers Guardian

  1,118

  Farmers Weekly

  1,620

  Farming News

  2,157

  Forces Family Echo

  798

  High Life

  15,972

  Macmillan/S Cut Nautical Almanac

  661

  439

  1991–92

  £

  Mail on Sunday—You Magazine

  1,750

  Motor Boat and Yachting

  2,008

  News/World—Sunday Magazine

  18,564

  Official Hyde Parks Festival Magazine

  5,040

  Practical Boat Owner

  1,667

  Racing Pigeon Weekly

  326

  Radio Times

  7,178

  RAF News

  463

  Reeds Nautical Almanac

  1,986

  Sunday Express Magazine

  11,075

  Thomson Holiday Guides

  2,127

  TV Times

  5,420

  Votre Livre du Bord

  1,290

  Womans Weekly

  2,448

  Yachting Monthly

  1,910

  Yachting World

  1,943

  Total

  97,388

  1990–91

  £

  British Tourist Authority

  5,725

  Country Life

  2,100

  DIT (Netherlands)

  693

  Editor

  1,207

  Fishing News

  303

  Fremdenverkehrswirtschaft

  2,276

  L'Agenzia Di Viaggi

  731

  E'Echo Touristique

  3,229

  Mother and Baby

  1,900

  Reeds Nautical Almanac

  300

  Sea Angler

  368

  Thomson Holiday Guides

  16,239

  Travel Express (Belgium)

  1,200

  Travel Trade Gazette

  3,040

  Total

  39,311

  Letter from T W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (known as the Central Veterinary Laboratory until 30 September 1995) on newspaper advertising.
  Figures for expenditure on newspaper advertising by the Central Veterinary Laboratory can be found in a reply to a question (No. 17610) from Mrs. Ann Taylor by Mr. Jack on 18 April 1995. Expenditure consists essentially of recruitment advertising in relevant trade journals and local papers.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on newspaper advertising by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, listed by title for each year since 1990/91, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The VMD does not normally advertise directly in newspapers. The grant and expiry of Marketing Authorisations are announced in the official gazettes and the expenditure for 1994/95 was as follows:

  £

  Belfast Gazette

  2,683

  London Gazette

  4,377

  Edinburgh Gazette

  3,823

  10,833

  440 It is anticipated that a similar amount will be spent in 1995/96. Figures for previous years are not available without incurring disproportional expense.
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) to your question about expenditure on newspaper advertising since 1990–91. The Directorate was established as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to this date are not available. In 1993/4, PSD spent £481 on newspaper advertising and £4,440 in 1994/5. All expenditure is directly attributable to recruitment advertising.
  The 1993/4, 1994/5 and estimated 1995/6 figures can be broken down as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  The Times and The Observer

  391

  The Review (free newspaper)

  100

  1994–95

  Yorkshire Press (Post/Evening Post)

  2,719

  New Scientist Magazine

  1,721

  1995–96

  New Scientist Magazine

  2,000 (estimate)

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question regarding expenditure on newspaper advertising for this agency has been passed to me for reply.

  As you know, the MHS was established on 1 April 1995 and the expenditure for the period 1 April to 30 November was £25,095.66. The estimated figure for 1995/96 is £27,331.90.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to you concerning your question (PQ number 236) in which you asked details of the expenditure relating to newspaper advertising for each year since 1990/91.
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF in 1992. Any detail relating to expenditure prior to that date would be available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  ADAS does not keep records of expenditure by title and we can only provide details of the total amount spent. The majority of advertising in both newspapers and journals relates to recruitment of staff and a relatively small amount is spent on advertising our commercial services. As you will know, ADAS operates as a commercial consultancy organisation providing a range of services to all the land-based industries.
  Expenditure has been as follows:

  1992/93: £52,000

  1993/94: £49,000

  1994/95: £102,000.

  No estimates are available for 1995/96

  Letter from George Trevelyan to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about newspaper advertising by title for this Agency a) for each year since 1990–91 and b) the estimate made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans.

  441
  The information in the form requested, by title, could not be provided without disproportionate cost.
  The advertising costs were for recruitment purposes and the totals were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  19,409

  1991–92

  14,210

  1992–93

  1,640

  1993–94

  2,108

  1994–95

  10,164

  The estimated advertising costs for 1995–96 for recruitment purposes in the Agency is £16,000 of which £8,145 has been spent to date.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 January 1996:
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide information for each of his executive agencies relating to expenditure on newspaper advertising by title in each financial year since 1990/91. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. Our records show that you asked a similar question in February of this year relating to expenditure on all forms of advertising but I am now aware that incorrect data was given to you. I apologies for that error but can now provide the correct information.
  CSL was first launched as a MAFF Executive Agency in April 1992. Thus my reply covers the years from 1992/93 to date. Further, the Agency was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following the merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories and this is reflected in increased expenditure from 1994/95.
  You requested only newspaper expenditure and by title for each year. I regret that the information is not readily available in this form and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However below are details of advertising expenditure, which includes advertising in specialist scientific journals as well as newspapers and is mainly for staff recruitment, as CSL is not involved in promotional advertising via this medium.

  1992/93: £29.6K

  1993/94: £50.0K

  1994/95: £59.0K

  1995/96: £89.8K (estimated).

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 December to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), how many of the bovines in which BSE was

  Expenditure of UK Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at constant 1990–91 prices1

  £ million (percentage of total)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  21994–95

  CAP Expenditure

  1,663 (62)

  1,603 (60)

  1,612 (60)

  2,405 (7)

  2,162 (66)

  Domestic Expenditure3

  1,011 (38)

  1,076 (40)

  1,066 (40)

  1,009 (30)

  1,093 (34)

  Total UK Expenditure

  2,673 (100)

  2,679 (100)

  2,678 (100)

  3,414 (100)

  3,254 (100)

  Notes:

  1Figures adjusted by retail price index.

  2Estimated outturn.

  3Includes expenditure on schemes on which part EU financing is available. The majority of this financing does not coincide with the year in which it is incurred.

  Source:

  Departmental Report of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Intervention Board 1995, Annex 9.
  442
  confirmed were from (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland; and of the carcases, how many from each country were (i) cows, (ii) maiden heifers, (iii) steers and (iv) bulls. [7138]

  Mrs. Browning
  In his reply of 14 December to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)Official Report, column 1094, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave the number of cases of BSE confirmed in the United Kingdom up to 8 December 1995 as 155,832. This was incorrect as the information given was for Great Britain and not the United Kingdom. The number of cases which has been confirmed in the United Kingdom at that date was 157,480.

  Up to 15 December 1995, 157,767 cases of BSE had been confirmed in the United Kingdom, and of these 133,849 were confirmed in England, 7,508 in Scotland, 14,757 in Wales, and 1,653 in Northern Ireland.

  Details of confirmed BSE cases are not recorded in a manner which permits retrieval in the format requested with respect to sex of the affected animal. For Great Britain and Northern Ireland, up to 15 December 1995, the available data can be broken down as follows:

  Number of BSE cases

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Cows

  155,656

  1,651

  Steers

  23

  0

  Bulls

  435

  2

  Support Payments
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total estimated amount of financial support received by the agricultural industry(a) from the European Union, (b) from the United Kingdom Government and (c) in total in each standard region and in the United Kingdom as a whole in each year since 1990 at constant prices indicating each figure as a percentage of the corresponding total. [8089]

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food on a financial year basis for the United Kingdom as a whole is set out in the table. Because of the nature of expenditure on certain programmes, it is not possible to identify support for the agricultural industry separately. A breakdown by standard region is not available.

  Fish Management Regimes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department is carrying out into fish management regimes in(a) New Zealand, (b) Canada, (c) Norway and (d) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [8393]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am aware of the fish management regimes adopted in other countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Norway. These are of course geared to the specific circumstances of those countries and would not be directly applicable elsewhere. The Ministry's fisheries department liaises closely with other countries in matters of mutual interest. For example, it plays a full part in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and will be participating in EU working groups with Norway to discuss a range of conservation issues.

  Fishing Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each treaty currently in force between the European Economic Community and any(a) third nation, and (b) group of nations that provides opportunities for its member states to fish in waters not regarded as a Community resource; and if he will indicate for each treaty the member states taking up such schemes together with the approximate quantity or value of their annual catches. [8299]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: Fishing opportunities in third country waters and in the regulatory area of the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation are set out in the table.

  European community. fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  Angola

  Licences for 5 surface

  Not allocated between

  longliners and 19

  Member States

  freezer tuna seiners.

  Opportunities for

  6,550 GRT per month

  of shrimp trawlers;

  1,900 GRT per month

  of demersal trawlers

  and 900 GRT per

  month of bottom set

  longliners with fixed

  gillnet.

  Argentina

  EC Quotas: 120,000

  Not allocated between

  tonnes of hubbsi hake,

  Member States

  50,000 tonnes of

  Patagonian grenadier,

  30,000 tonnes of ilex

  squid and 50,000

  tonnes of Patagonian

  rockcod or roughhead

  grenadier.

  Cape Verde

  Licences for 23

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners,

  Member States

  17 pole-and-line tuna

  vessels and surface

  longliners, and 3

  bottom longliners. A

  quota of 4,850 tonnes

  of tuna per annum is

  available.

  444

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  Comoros

  Licences for 37

  Not allocated between

  Ocean-going freezer

  Member States

  tuna vessels. A quota

  of 4,500 tonnes of

  tuna per annum is

  available.

  Equatorial Guinea

  Licences for 47

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners,

  Member States

  2 pole-and-line tuna

  vessels and 4 surface

  longliners, A quota of

  2,750 tonnes of tuna

  per annum is

  available.

  Estonia

  1996 EC Quotas: 530

  Tonnes of cod, 10,500

  Tonnes of herring,

  22,500 tonnes of

  sprat, and 4,500

  salmon (individual

  fish). Denmark: 275

  tonnes of cod, 5,700

  tones of herring,

  15,800 tonnes of

  sprat, and 2,430

  salmon.

  Finland: 80 tonnes of

  cod and 1,800 salmon.

  Germany: 125 tonnes

  of cod, 4,300 tonnes

  of herring, 4,200

  tonnes of sprat and

  270 salmon.

  Sweden: 50 tonnes of

  cod, 500 tonnes of

  Sweden: 50 tonnes of

  herring and 2,500

  tones of sprat.

  Faroe Island

  1996 EC Quotas: 500

  UK: 430 tonnes of

  tonnes of

  cod/haddock, 580

  cod/haddock, 2,500

  tonnes of saithe, 75

  tonnes of saithe, 7,000

  tonnes of redfish, 205

  tonnes of redfish,

  tones of ling/blue

  3,600 tonnes of

  ling, 11,000 tonnes of

  ling/blue ling, 25,000

  blue whiting, 680

  tonnes of blue

  tonnes of flatfish and

  whiting, 1,000 tonnes

  180 tonnes of 'other'

  of flatfish, 4,910

  species.

  tonnes of mackerel

  Germany: 10 tonnes

  and 760 tonnes of

  of cod/haddock, 310

  'other' species.

  tonnes of saithe, 6,440

  tonnes of redfish,

  1,055 tonnes of

  ling/blue ling, 180

  tonnes of flatfish and

  305 tonnes of 'other'

  species.

  France: 60 tonnes of

  cod/haddock, 1,510

  tonnes of saithe, 435

  tonnes of redfish,

  2,340 tonnes of

  ling/blue ling, 140

  tonnes of flatfish and

  275 tonnes of 'other'

  species.

  Belgium: 50 tonnes of

  saithe and 50 tonnes

  of redfish.

  Netherlands: 50

  tonnes of saithe.

  Denmark: 11,000

  tonnes of blue whiting

  and 4,910 tonnes of

  mackerel.

  445

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  Gambia

  Licences for 23

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners

  Member States

  and 7 pole-and-line

  tuna vessels.

  Opportunities for 410

  GRT per year of fresh

  fish trawlers; 2,000

  GRT per year of

  freezer trawlers

  fishing for shrimps

  and 750 GRT per year

  of freezer trawlers

  fishing for other

  species.

  Greenland

  1996 EC Quotas: 31,

  Germany: 25,360

  000 tonnes of cod,

  tonnes of cod, 51,665

  52,320 tonnes of

  tonnes of redfish,

  redfish, 6,000 tonnes

  4,590 tonnes of

  of Greenland halibut,

  Greenland halibut,

  4,525 tonnes of

  2,000 tonnes of

  deepwater prawns,

  catfish, 24,000 tonnes

  2,000 tonnes of

  of blue whiting and

  catfish, 30,000 tonnes

  4,950 tonnes of

  of blue whiting and

  roundnose grenadier.

  6,000 tonnes of

  UK: 5,640 tonnes of

  roundnose grenadier.

  cod, 325 tonnes of

  redfish, 210 tonnes of

  Greenland halibut and

  250 tonnes of

  roundnose grenadier.

  France: 330 tonnes of

  redfish, 1,012 tonnes

  of deep-water prawns

  and 3,000 tonnes of

  blue whiting.

  Denmark: 1,012

  tonnes of deep-water

  prawns and 3,000

  tonnes of blue

  whiting.

  Guinea Bissau

  Licences for 26

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners

  Member States

  and 16 pole-and-line

  tuna vessels and

  surface longliners.

  Opportunities for

  8,800 GRT per month

  for freezer shrimp

  trawlers and 4,000

  GRT per month of

  freezer fin-fish

  trawlers and

  cephalopod trawlers.

  Guinea Conakry

  Licences for 24

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners,

  Member States

  10 pole-and-line tuna

  vessels and 5 surface

  longliners.

  Opportunities for

  4,200 GRT per month

  of trawlers.

  Iceland

  1996 EC Quota: 3,000

  Germany: 1,690

  tonnes of Redfish

  tonnes, UK: 1.160

  tones, Belgium: 100

  tones, and France:

  50 tonnes.

  446

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  Ivory Coast

  Licences for 46 tuna

  Not allocated between

  seiners and 7

  Member States

  pole-and-line tuna

  vessels and surface

  longliners.

  Opportunities for 600

  GRT per month of

  freezer trawlers

  fishing for demersal

  species. A quota of

  7,500 tonnes of tuna

  per annum is

  available.

  Latvia

  1996 EC Quotas:

  1,420 tonnes of cod,

  3,500 tonnes of

  herring, 19,500 tonnes

  of sprat, and 6,500

  salmon (individual

  fish).

  Denmark: 310 tonnes

  of cod, 1,715 tonnes

  of herring, 11,880

  tonnes of sprat, and

  1,800 salmon.

  Finland: 270 tonnes

  of cod, 500 tonnes of

  sprat and 3,000

  salmon.

  Germany: 140 tonnes

  of cod, 1,285 tonnes

  of herring, 3,120

  tonnes of sprat and

  200 salmon.

  Sweden: 700 tonnes

  of cod, 500 tonnes of

  herring, 4,000 tonnes

  of sprat and 1,500

  salmon.

  Lithuania

  1996 EC Quotas:

  Denmark: 535 tonnes

  2,125 tonnes of cod,

  of cod, 1,715 tonnes

  3,000 tonnes of

  herring, 5,925 of sprat

  herring, 12,000 tonnes

  and 1,800 salmon.

  of sprat, 25 tonnes of

  Germany: 240 tonnes

  flatfish and 4,500

  of cod, 1,285 tonnes

  salmon (individual

  of herring, 1,575

  fish).

  tonnes of sprat and

  200 salmon.

  Finland: 200 tonnes

  of cod and 1,000

  salmon.

  Sweden: 1,150 tonnes

  of cod, 4,500 tonnes

  of sprat, 25 tonnes of

  flatfish and 4,500

  salmon.

  Madagascar

  Licences for 42

  freezer tuna vessels

  and 16 surface

  longliners. A quota of

  9,000 tonnes of tuna

  per annum is

  available. Not

  allocated between

  Member States

  447

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  Mauritania

  Licences for 34

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners

  Member States

  and 11 pole-and-line

  tuna vessels.

  Opportunities for

  4,500 GRT per month

  of vessels fishing for

  crustaceans; 12,000

  GRT per month of

  black hake trawlers

  and bottom longliners;

  2,600 GRT per month

  of vessels fishing for

  deepwater demersal

  species and 300 GRT

  per month of pot

  vessels fishing for

  crawfish.

  Mauritius

  Licences for 20

  Not allocated between

  ocean-going tuna

  Member States

  seiners. Opportunities

  for 100 GRT per

  month of vessels

  fishing by line. A

  quota of 6,000 tonnes

  of tuna per annum is

  available.

  Morocco

  Opportunities in the

  Spain: 30,212 GRT

  period 1 December

  per year of

  1995 to 31 November

  cephalopod vessels;

  1996: 30,212 GRT

  11,200 GRT per year

  per year of

  of shrimp trawlers;

  cephalopod vessels;

  7,412 GRT per year

  11,200 GRT per year

  of longliners; 1,300

  of shrimp trawlers;

  GRT per year of

  11,350 GRT per year

  seiners (North); 4,800

  of longliners; 1,300

  GRT per year of

  GRT per year of

  seiners (South); 1,550

  seiners (Northern

  GRT per year of

  zone); 4,800 GRT per

  artisanal vessels;

  year of seiners

  3,000 GRT per year

  (Southern zone);

  of black hake

  1,550 GRT per year

  trawlers; and licences

  of artisanal vessels;

  for 17 tuna vessels.

  3,000 GRT per year

  France: 1,300 GRT

  of black hake

  per year of pelagic

  trawlers; 1,300 GRT

  trawlers and licences

  per year of pelagic

  for 10 tuna vessels.

  trawlers: licences of

  Portugal: 3,938 GRT

  27 tuna vessels and

  per year of longliners;

  for 5 vessels catching

  Greece: licences for 5

  sponges.

  vessels fishing for

  sponges.

  UK: 13,585 tonnes of

  cod: 2,300 tonnes of

  haddock; 500 tonnes

  of saithe; 400 tonnes

  of redfish; 50 tonnes

  of Greenland halibut

  and 240 tonnes of

  'other' species.

  Norway

  1996 EC Quotas:

  France: 3.215 tonnes

  30.050 tonnes of cod;

  of cod; 450 tonnes of

  3.500 tonnes of

  haddock: 900 tones of

  haddock; 7,000 tonnes

  saithe; 220 tonnes of

  of saithe; 3,500

  redfish; 500 tonnes of

  tonnes of redfish; 100

  blue whiting and 60

  tonnes of Greenland

  tonnes of 'other'

  halibut: 1,000 tonnes

  species.

  448

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  of blue whiting;

  Germany: 3,500

  15,150 tonnes of

  tonnes of cod; 750

  mackerel, and 450

  tonnes of haddock;

  tonnes of 'other'

  5,600 tonnes of

  species.

  saithe; 1,880 tonnes

  of redfish: 50 tonnes

  of Greenland halibut

  and 150 tonnes of

  'other' species.

  Spain: 4,630 tonnes

  of cod and 190 tonnes

  of redfish.

  Portugal: 4,390

  tonnes of cod and 810

  tonnes of redfish.

  Ireland: 730 tonnes of

  cod.

  Denmark: 15,150

  tonnes of mackerel.

  Poland

  1996 EC Quotas:

  1,000 tonnes of

  herring; 15,000 tonnes

  of sprat; 50 tonnes of

  flatfish and 1,350

  salmon (individual

  fish). All quotas to

  Sweden

  Senegal

  Licences for 47

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners,

  Member States

  11 pole-and-line tuna

  vessels and 6 surface

  longliners.

  Opportunities for

  1,000 GRT per year

  of trawlers (inshore

  demersal fishing);

  4,000 GRT per 4

  month period of

  ocean-going fish

  trawlers; 1,000 GRT

  per year of freezer

  trawlers; 2,000 GRT

  per 4 month period of

  freezer trawlers, and

  5,000 GRT per year

  of ocean-going shrimp

  freezer trawlers.

  Seychelles

  Licences for 40

  Not allocated between

  ocean-going freezer

  Member States

  tuna seiners. A quota

  of 46,000 tonnes of

  tuna per annum is

  available.

  Sao Tonne e Principe

  Licences for 40

  Not allocated between

  freezer tuna seiners

  Member States

  and 8 pole-and-line

  tuna vessels and

  surface longliners. A

  quota of 9,000 tonnes

  of tuna per annum is

  available.

  449

  European community fisheries agreements with third countries and international organisations

  Third country

  Opportunities available to EC

  Allocation between Member States

  North West Atlantic

  1996 EC Quotas:

  Fisheries Organisation

  5,485 tonnes of cod in

  (NAFO)

  Area 3M; 4,030

  tonnes of redfish in

  Area 3M; 374 tonnes

  of redfish in Area

  3LN; 11,070 tonnes

  of Greenland halibut

  in Area 3LMNO and

  350 tonnes of shrimp

  in Area 3M.

  Germany: 513 tonnes

  of cod 3M; 374

  tonnes of redfish

  3LN, and 540 tonnes

  of Greenland halibut

  in 3LMNO.

  Spain: 1,574 tonnes

  of cod 3M; 7,399

  tonnes of Greenland

  halibut 3LMNO, and

  135 tonnes of shrimp

  3M.

  Portugal: 2,155

  tonnes of cod 3M;

  3,121 tonnes of

  Greenland halibut

  3LMNO and 70

  tonnes of shrimp 3M.

  France: 221 tonnes of

  cod 3M.

  UK: 1,022 tonnes of

  cod 3M.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the articles of treaties signed by the United Kingdom which are the principal regulation of the European Economic Community, as published in its official journal that relate to and comprise the common fisheries policy; and what method of voting was used in the Council of Ministers to reach its decision in respect of each advance of that policy since 1966. [8298]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: The foundations of the common fisheries policy are to be found in articles 38 to 46 of the treaty of Rome 1956 to which the United Kingdom acceded by virtue of the treaty of accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Articles 98 to 103 of the 1972 treaty relate specifically to fisheries. The treaty on European union of 1993 amended the treaty of Rome. Article 3 of the 1993 treaty specifically refers to fisheries. All three treaties were adopted, by unanimity.

  Bilateral Fisheries Arrangements (Norway)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on bilateral fisheries arrangements between the United Kingdom and Norway; and if he will make a statement. [8384]

  Mr. Baldry
  My aim is always to achieve the best possible deal for UK fishermen through the European Community's bilateral fisheries arrangements with Norway.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of removing more fishing vessels from the British fleet; what proposals he has to do this in accordance with the payment of adequate compensation to(a) vessel owners, (b) boat crews, (c) shore engineers and (d) merchants; and if he will make a statement. [8398]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the terms of the EU's multi-annual guidance programme, the United Kingdom has to meet targets for the reduction of fishing effort in the period 1993–96, of which at least 55 per cent. must be achieved by the removal of capacity. Three rounds of decommissioning have already taken place and a further £24 million remains available.

  Compensation to vessel owners takes the form of decommissioning grant, the amount of which is determined by competitive tender within the rules of the relevant statutory schemes. I have no plans to extend compensation to any other groups. The treatment of crews is already covered by employment law and social security schemes.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how decommissioning of boats is taken into account when he is determining annual quota allocations for each United Kingdom port. [8397]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK's fish quotas are not allocated by port but between the under 10 m fleet, all vessels which are 10 m or under in overall length; the sector, producer organisations whose membership includes vessels over 10 m in overall length; and the non-sector vessels over 10 m in overall length not in membership of producer organisations. The allocations reflect the licensed and registered vessels in each of these groups on 1 January of the quota year. Any vessel which had been decommissioned—deregistered and its licence surrendered—before 1 January would not be included in the distribution of allocation for the following year.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money will have been paid(a) to Spanish fishermen and (b) to British boat-owners for decommissioning, in each of the past two years and in total by 1 April 1997; and if he will make a statement. [8401]

  Mr. Baldry
  In the United Kingdom, we spent £7.8 million in 1993 and £8.8 million in 1994 on decommissioning under the relevant UK statutory schemes. In the period 1993 to 1997, it is currently planned that a total of some £41 million will be paid, with a further £12 million available for 1997–98.

  I have no information about expenditure in Spain.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels(a) registered in the United Kingdom and (b) registered by country in other countries, are fishing against United Kingdom total allowable catches for all species with effect from 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8391]
  451
  Mr. Baldry
  Only fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and holding fishing licences issued by the fisheries departments may fish for profit against UK quota. At I January 1996, some 8,500 vessels were licensed to fish for profit although not all vessels are entitled to fish for the full range of stocks subject to quota.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many British registered fishing vessels will have been decommissioned by 31 March 1996; and how many non-British registered fishing vessels, by country will be fishing in what were formerly British waters and fishing current British quotas by the same date. [8399]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the United Kingdom's decommissioning schemes, for which only British registered vessels are eligible, a total of 297 vessels were decommissioned in 1993 and 1994. Applications in respect of a further 164 have been accepted under the 1995 scheme and owners have until 29 February 1996 to scrap their vessels.

  No non-British registered fishing vessels are able to fish against British quotas in any waters.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has further to restrict fishing effort beyond the 1996 total allowable catch and further to reduce the fleet size; and if he will make a statement. [8365]

  Mr. Baldry
  Conservation policy requires a combination of measures to limit exploitation rates, including output limitation in the form of total allowable catches, TACs, and input limitations such as the reduction of fleet size through multi-annual guidance programmes, MAGPs. Decisions on TACs beyond 1996 will be taken by the Council of Ministers in the normal way. Decisions on the next series of MAGPs, covering the period 1997–99, are due to be taken this year. The UK will play a full and constructive role in all these discussions.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the decommissioning scheme to find alternative uses for boats besides scrapping them; and if he will make a statement. [8366]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is a requirement of Council regulation 3699/93 that decommissioned vessels are permanently excluded from fishing in Community waters and that vessels of less than 25 gross registered tonnes have to be scrapped to qualify for Community aid. In other cases, experience has shown that it is only by requiring vessels to he made permanently unseaworthy that we can guarantee meeting our obligations. Nevertheless, I am always willing to consider any suggestions an applicant may make for alternatives to scrapping which provide the same degree of certainty in protecting public expenditure.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what priority is accorded to advice from(a) scientists, (b) environmentalists and (c) industry representatives when their advice is conflicting when he is deciding what quota levels to accept in EU negotiations; how much weight is given to (i) economic consequences, (ii) social deprivation and (iii) fisheries dependence; and if he will make a statement. [8406]
  452
  Mr. Baldry
  I am very concerned about the socio-economic consequences of changes to fisheries quotas. My priority is therefore to achieve the best possible deal for the fishing industry. To do this effectively, I take account of the scientific advice and the need to conserve the sea's resources.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what priority he attaches to the relative stability in setting quotas following the Factortame judgment of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement. [8396]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK has enjoyed considerable benefit from the application of relative stability as the basis for the apportionment of EU total allowable catches between members states. Although, following the Factortame judgment, we are unable to preclude vessels owned by interests from other member states from joining the UK register, the process of registration does not automatically confer access to UK fish quotas. A vessel must be licensed to fish and since new licences are no longer issued on demand, any vessel wishing to join the UK fishing fleet can do so only by acquiring a licence from a previously licensed vessel.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to amend the relative stability element of the common fisheries policy so that a quota in any species cannot be reduced in any year by more than a predetermined percentage figure from the previous year; and if he will make a statement. [8404]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is my policy to avoid unnecessarily sharp reductions in quotas. However, if a stock is declining rapidly, limiting the quota reduction to a predetermined percentage figure could have disastrous consequences with the fishery having to be completely closed in the following year. I believe that this is something that we should always seek to avoid.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the economic impact of quota reductions in the 1996 total allowable catches in respect of each United Kingdom port; and if he will make a statement; [8372]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the information the EU Fisheries Commissioner holds on the diversity and impact of quota reductions on each part of the United Kingdom fishing industry with effect from 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8374]

  Mr. Baldry
  The reason for reducing certain fish quotas is to conserve stocks and thereby to ensure the future economic viability of the industry.

  The European Commission takes account of the impact of quota reductions throughout the Community when it makes its proposals for total allowable catches. At the start of the negotiations on TACs for 1996, the level of UK quotas being considered for the stocks of most importance to our fishermen was some 88,000 tonnes lower than our 1995 quotas in cod equivalent terms. As a result of changes agreed at the Fisheries Council on 21–22 December 1995, the final level of quotas for the same stocks was some 34,000 lower than our 1995 quotas. This represents approximately £15 million in 1995 market prices.
  453
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to re-organise quota allocations and both sector and non-sector management on a purely regional basis; which regions he expects to recognise; and if he will make a statement. [8386]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to reorganise quota allocation and management on a regional basis. Fish producer organisations, which are responsible for the day-to-day management of the greater part of UK quotas, already operate on a regional basis. I have, however, made it clear to the fishing industry that I am prepared to look at proposals for changing the present management arrangements provided these are practicable and command wide support.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects his common fisheries policy review group to report to him; if he will publish their findings and submissions made to them in full; and if he will make a statement; [8402]

  (2) when he expects to publish the findings of the common fisheries policy review group and his response to them; and if he will make a statement. [8388]

  Mr. Baldry
  I expect the common fisheries policy review group to report in the spring. I will make public both its report and the Government's response to it. The submissions received by the group will also be made available.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with which part of the common fisheries policy relative stability and quota swaps conform; and what plans he has to balance them in the future negotiations with his EU counterparts; and if he will make a statement. [8405]

  Mr. Baldry
  The principle of relative stability is established under article 8(4) of the basic common fisheries policy regulation 3760/92. Quota swaps are permitted under article 9 of the same regulation. I have no plans to seek changes to either provision.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice his Department has given to other Government Departments on fish stocks and fish management to assist them in talks on EU enlargement with(a) the Baltic states, (b) former eastern bloc states and (c) other aspirant EU members; and if he will make a statement; [8395]

  (2) what plans he has for the development of the United Kingdom fishing industry from 2002 onwards; and if he will make a statement; [8361]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made as to how the common fisheries policy will have to be reformed to prepare for the accession of new member states to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [8379]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry has advised on the importance of maintaining existing UK fishing opportunities in enlargement negotiations. Changes need to be made to the common fisheries policy whether or not the Community is enlarged. I shall continue to discuss 454
  with the industry what changes they would like to see in the period leading up to and at the review of the CFP in 2002.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the changes in the number of jobs in the fishing industry for each United Kingdom port for each year since the common fisheries policy began; and if he will make a statement. [8362]

  Mr. Baldry
  Such information as is available about the number of fishermen in UK ports over the period in question is published in tables 2.6 and 2.7 of "United Kingdom Sea Fisheries Statistics 1994" which is available in the Library. Information about jobs indirectly related to sea fishing is not available.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission a study into the benefits accruing to United Kingdom fishermen from Britain's participation in the common fisheries policy and what losses they have incurred by having United Kingdom fishing waters declared a common European resource; and if he will make a statement. [8364]

  Mr. Baldry
  The benefits to United Kingdom fishermen resulting from our participation in the common fisheries policy include: tighter restrictions than applied before we joined the Community in access by foreign vessels within our 12-mile fishery limits; a larger share of fish quotas in Community waters than was justified by our historic catch record in the 1973 to 1978 reference period used when quota shares were decided; fishing opportunities in the waters of non-member states secured through the Community's bilateral agreements with those countries; access to European Community grant schemes; a common policy on conservation rules enabling us to influence the rules applied in the waters of other member states to the benefit of our industry.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what interpretation his Department's officials make of open access by all member states to all waters when they are advising him and preparing for negotiations with the United Kingdom's partners on fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement; [8377]

  (2) what estimate he has made of legal obstacles in the way of the Government beginning negotiations with the United Kingdom's EU partners to reform the common fisheries policy so that there is no common access to fish resources in all waters; what legal obstructions would prevent the United Kingdom leaving the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [8458]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Council of Ministers can decide by qualified majority on the basis of a proposal from the European Commission that there shall be no common access to fish resources in all waters. This, indeed, is the current arrangement.

  I explained to the House on 22 November Official Report, column 591 The steps that would be necessary for the United Kingdom to leave the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the policy of his EU counterparts to reform the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [8389]
  455
  Mr. Baldry
  I shall discuss improvements to the common fisheries policy with my counterparts in other member states once I have considered the conclusions of the CFP review group.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the bureaucratic requirements placed on the fishing industry in respect of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [8369]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is the Ministry's policy to keep to the minimum the burdens which the common fisheries policy places on the industry. A close dialogue is maintained with the industry and we welcome constructive proposals for deregulation in the fisheries sector.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what talks he has had recently and expects to have in the next three months with the EU Fisheries Commissioner on the state of(a) the British fishing industry, (b) the future of the common fisheries policy and (c) relative stability in the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement. [8373]

  Mr. Baldry
  Both before and during the Fisheries Council on 21–22 December 1995 I spoke to Mrs. Bonino about the state of the British fishing industry and the future of the common fisheries policy. I plan to have further discussions with her in March.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to consult hon. Members representing fisheries and the fishing industry before proceeding further towards reform of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [8376]

  Mr. Baldry
  I will welcome the views of any hon. Member on ways of improving the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on interpreting the "common resource open to all" basis of the common fisheries policy in respect of Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels in former British waters(a) where there is historic evidence of their fleets fishing and (b) where there is no evidence of their fleets fishing; and if he will make a statement. [8378]

  Mr. Baldry
  Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels have no access within the United Kingdom's 12-mile limits. Within our 200 mile limits, they are also excluded from the North sea, the Irish sea and the Bristol channel. These exclusions are based on historic fishing patterns.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances he will bring forward to his EU counterparts a scheme to abandon the common fisheries policy altogether and reinstate sovereign waters with bilateral arrangements for fish management; and if he will make a statement. [8993]

  Mr. Baldry
  Proposing to scrap the common fisheries policy altogether is not a realistic option.

  Fisheries Conservation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake research into 456
  franchising areas of sea to fishermen as an alternative to licensing boats; and if he will make a statement. [8403]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to undertake such research. Under Council regulation (EC) No. 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences, member states are required to operate a licensing system for fishing vessels.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to replace decommissioning as a tool of effort reduction, with closure of specified areas of seas during relevant spawning seasons; if he will make it his policy to allocate money set aside for decommissioning of fishing vessels to compensate all sectors of the fishing industry during such close seasons; and if he will make a statement. [8407]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake feasibility studies on effective policing of fisheries regulations by a system of closed sea areas during spawning seasons to replace the present licensing system; and if he will make a statement. [8387]

  Mr. Baldry
  There are a number of areas where fishing is controlled to protect young fish and to allow them to grow to maturity. The merits of any particular closed area have to be carefully evaluated, bearing in mind the mixed nature of our fisheries and the fact that fish will move in and out of areas. Nevertheless, protected areas are generally regarded as making a useful contribution to conservation. They are not, however, an alternative to the present licensing and TAC system because uncontrolled fishing effort outside such areas could outweigh the benefits achieved from closed spawning grounds.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods of control, management and conservation of the fish stocks of the United Kingdom he proposes to assess(a) in addition to and (b) instead of the current regime of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [8375]

  Mr. Baldry
  Key elements in the common fisheries policy are the structural regime and the fisheries management regime.

  The structural measures under the multi-annual guidance programmes are directed towards reducing the fishing effort of the fleets of member states to bring it better into line with fishing opportunities. The UK is spending £53 million on decommissioning fishing vessels to this end. We will be consulting the fishing industry prior to discussions on the changes needed for the next round of programmes starting in 1997. The fisheries management regime under the CFP is, like the regimes applied by many countries around the world, based on establishing total allowable catches which are administered as fishing quotas.

  The quota management system applied by the UK is discussed with our industry each autumn to see whether changes should be made. At the most recent discussions there were no suggestions that any substantial changes would be helpful. However, the industry has been invited to see whether there are any changes which could usefully

  457
  be made which would be acceptable to the industry collectively. I am awaiting its response, which I shall consider carefully.

  The management regime is also supported by technical conservation measures which deal with matters such as mesh sizes, minimum landing sizes and closed areas. The fisheries conservation group, which I have announced, will be examining ideas from fishermen to agree which are the most promising to seek to have introduced as improvements to the existing CFP conservation regime. Again, the fishing industry's constructive views will be vital.

  Finally, the management regime includes the monitoring of fishing effort in western waters from January this year so that all member states comply with limits laid down last year. These will ensure that full Spanish integration into the CFP does not result in fishing effort rising above the specified levels. We shall be assessing the effectiveness and enforcement of these arrangements and, if necessary, seeking improvements to them. I shall welcome the views of the fishing industry.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes to his fisheries policy he expects to make arising from decisions taken by the House on fishing policy on 19 December 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8381]

  Mr. Baldry
  The votes taken in the House on 19 December confirmed my determination to continue to work for effective conservation of fish stocks, a fair allocation of fishing opportunities and rigorous enforcement of the controls that are in place.

  Grant Schedules, Lowestoft
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how new grant schemes for harbours, port facilities and fish marketing and processing will be available for projects at Lowestoft; how much money is potentially available for Lowestoft; and what advice his officials are giving to industry representatives at Lowestoft. [8383]

  Mr. Baldry
  Lowestoft has been designated as a fishery dependent area eligible for aid under the EU PESCA initiative, for which applications will shortly be invited. Appropriate projects in Lowestoft will also be eligible for grant aid for marketing and processing and port facilities under the EU's financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which will also be open to applications in the UK in the next few weeks, Aid under the existing national harbour grant scheme is already available.

  All these schemes are competitive and each project will be considered on its merits before funds can be allocated. Officials are already in touch with industry representatives in Lowestoft and will be giving further advice when new schemes are launched.

  Unemployment (Fishing Industry)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to compensate people employed in the fishing industry who become 458
  unemployed because of a reduction in fish quotas from 1995 to 1996. [8385]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have already announced that £24 million is available for decommissioning fishing vessels in 1996 and 1997.

  In addition, under the PESCA initiative, which is designed to address the problems facing the fishing industry, up to £71 million of European and UK national or regional aid will be available until the end of 1999 for projects including the diversification and retraining in fishery dependent areas.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has undertaken in the last five years into the effects of pollution on fish stocks in the North sea; what steps he proposes to tackle pollution; and if he will make a statement. [8400]

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department annually monitors fish from all the waters around the English and Welsh coast. The results which are published show that where contamination can be detected the levels involved give no cause for concern. In addition, specific studies have been carried out and are continuing, to assess whether contaminants impair fish health. There is no convincing evidence to link fish mutation or disease with levels of contaminants found around the coast. Fish are safe to eat.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what priority is accorded to neighbourhood agreements with France and Ireland in his policy for fisheries management; what factors militate against their extension to other EU countries; and if he will list the differences between such neighbourhood agreements and bilateral agreements with other countries. [8408]

  Mr. Baldry
  The management of fisheries resources in Community waters is determined within the framework of the common fisheries policy. The UK maintains close contact with those member states whose waters adjoin British fishery limits on a wide range of issues including conservation and enforcement. Bilateral agreements with third countries are negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of the union.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the size of the fishing industry on 1 January 1996(a) by tonnage, (b) by number of registered vessels, (c) by number of people employed directly and (d) by number of people employed indirectly; what estimate he has made in respect of (a) to (d) for 1 January 2003; and if he will make a statement. [8367]

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information is published in table 2:1 and 2:6 of the "UK Sea Fisheries Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information on the number of people indirectly employed in the fishing industry is not available. We have not made any comparable estimates for the year 2003.
  459
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect the livelihoods of fishermen using small, open boats from beaches for less than a day at a time; and if he will make a statement. [8368]

  Mr. Baldry
  Quota allocations are set aside for the under 10m fleet and these have been underpinned since 1994.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to apply the same principle to fishing and the European Court of Justice as the German constitutional court; and if he will make a statement. [8390]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to do so. All member states are obliged to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Justice.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to have fishing policy placed on the agenda for the intergovernmental conference on the future of Europe; and if he will make a statement. [8380]

  Mr. Baldry
  The purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to discuss possible treaty amendments. Improvements are needed to the common fisheries policy but these can be achieved within the present treaty provisions.

  Dolphins
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the report commissioned by his Department into dolphin deaths in tuna fishing nets off the western coasts of Britain and Europe in summer 1995. [9386]

  Mr. Baldry
  On 20 December I placed a copy of the sea mammal research unit's report "Cetacean bycatch in the UK tuna driftnet fishery in 1995" in the Library.

  Orange Juice
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to ensure that the United Kingdom freshly squeezed orange juice industry has continued access to the raw materials that it needs. [9777]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The price of raw materials used by the freshly squeezed orange juice industry would have been significantly increased by Community legislation on import tariffs. This would have had severe economic consequences for an innovative and growing sector. I made clear to Commissioner Fischler that this would be completely unacceptable.

  We have succeeded in persuading the Commission to take note of our very genuine concerns. A temporary measure has now been adopted that will ensure that our processors have access to the raw materials they need at realistic prices. This is good news for importers, processors and consumers. We will continue to work towards a permanent solution so that our industry can plan ahead for the years to come.

  Sheep and Cow Premiums
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to re-assess producers' entitlement to developers' quota from the 1993 sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quota national reserves following the judgment of Mr. Justice Macpherson in the English. High Court on 22 June 1995; and what provision he is making to compensate producers adversely affected by his Department's actions. [9708]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have today laid before Parliament the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quota (Re-assessment of Eligibility) Regulations 1996. These regulations put in place arrangements for the re-assessment, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, of applications for "developers" quota from a special reserve using new guidelines governing eligibility. The farming and landowning organisations have been fully consulted on the purpose and content of the regulations.

  Where these arrangements adversely affect producers they will be entitled to compensation. The general principles forming the basis of compensation as currently envisaged are as follows:
  1. Producers whose applications for 'developers' quota are newly assessed as eligible will be entitled to:

  either
  if they acquired quota by transfer or lease for any or all of the scheme years 1993 to 1996 for SAPS and 1993 to 1995 for SCPS reimbursement of the cost of acquiring that quota up to a maximum of the amount of quota that they should have received under category 3c;

  Or
  if they did not acquire quota by transfer or lease for all or any of the scheme years 1993 to 1995 and can demonstrate that the eligible animals that would have been covered by that quota were retained on the holding during the relevant retention periods, reimbursement of the value of the premium they would have received on the eligible animals during 1993 to 1995 up to a maximum of the amount of quota that they should have received under category 3c;

  and
  where appropriate, an award of quota in accordance with the Regulations.
  2. Those individuals (or their personal representatives) who are unable to apply for quota from the special reserve but who would have been entitled to receive "developers" quota from the 1993 national reserve had the new eligibility guidelines been used originally:
  will be entitled to compensation equivalent to that in paragraph 1.
  3. Where producers who have quota withdrawn from them to meet the new demand for "developers" quota:
  they will be entitled to a compensation payment with which they can, if they wish, purchase quota through the open market to replace that withdrawn, and
  their entitlement to 1996 SAPS payments in respect of any withdrawn quota will be honoured provided that the producers concerned meet the Scheme rules
  4. Other producers
  Where producers consider that compensation not provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 above is due to them as a result of the re-assessment exercise, they will be able to submit details of their case for consideration by the appropriate Agriculture Department.

  461
  5. Practical arrangements
  In most cases it will be possible only to determine those who may be eligible for compensation and the amounts due once all applications have been assessed, the final demand for quota has been established and quota has been allocated. This will not be before the summer of 1996.
  The aim is to draw up standard terms for compensation—which will be agreed with farming and landowning organisations—which will simplify the process for claiming compensation for most farmers.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Staff
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified(a) nursery teachers and (b) nursery nurses of working age there are in the United Kingdom. [8279]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information shows that there were 7,281 full-time equivalent, FTE, qualified teachers and 9,308 FTE qualified nursery assistants employed in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England in January 1995. At that time there were a further 8,103 FTE qualified nursery assistants employed in other classes in maintained primary schools in England.

  Provision of education for under. fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in each Local Education Authority area in England—January 1995

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery, classes

  Infant classes3

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Camden

  61

  1

  955

  23

  1,015

  24

  Greenwich

  647

  10

  2,635

  39

  1,024

  15

  Hackney

  149

  2

  2,172

  33

  1,587

  24

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  554

  14

  1,167

  31

  568

  15

  Islington

  319

  6

  1,575

  31

  1,466

  29

  Kensington and Chelsea

  249

  7

  608

  18

  385

  12

  Lambeth

  450

  6

  2,011

  25

  1,018

  13

  Lewisham

  231

  3

  2,431

  33

  1,131

  15

  Southwark

  535

  7

  2,562

  35

  2,120

  29

  Tower Hamlets

  721

  12

  2,635

  45

  1705

  29

  Wandsworth

  216

  3

  2,176

  32

  1,624

  24

  Westminster

  190

  5

  993

  25

  574

  14

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  2,054

  42

  1,623

  34

  Barnet

  575

  7

  2,095

  25

  2,205

  26

  Bexley

  0

  0

  1,442

  23

  2,074

  33

  Brent

  223

  3

  2,377

  33

  1,974

  27

  Bromley

  0

  0

  172

  2

  2,385

  34

  Croydon

  499

  5

  1,512

  16

  2,883

  30

  Ealing

  454

  5

  3,265

  39

  2,426

  29

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1,663

  22

  2,389

  31

  Haringey

  223

  4

  2,519

  40

  1,848

  29

  Harrow

  0

  0

  1,009

  18

  1,626

  29

  Havering

  0

  0

  495

  9

  1,984

  35

  Hillingdon

  120

  2

  3,234

  47

  87

  1

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  2,363

  41

  1,725

  30

  Kingston upon Thames

  242

  7

  967

  28

  1,038

  30

  Merton

  0

  0

  2,713

  55

  983

  20

  Newham

  959

  11

  3,496

  40

  1,280

  15

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  1,326

  21

  1,397

  22

  Richmond upon Thames

  68

  2

  670

  16

  1,114

  26

  Sutton

  240

  5

  1,727

  36

  64

  1

  Waltham Forest

  308

  4

  2,405

  34

  1,044

  15

  462
  Information about the number of staff employed in schools in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital funding allocations have been made for grant-maintained schools for 1996–97; and if she will list the allocations per school. [9061]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Capital allocations to grant-maintained schools are a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools for England. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Pre-school Provision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and percentage of children under the age of five years who have a place in(a) reception classes in schools, (b) nursery classes in schools and (c) nursery schools by each local education authority area and nationally. [9060]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information on pupils aged under five in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority in England is shown in the table:
  463

  Provision of education for under. fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in each Local Education Authority area in England—January 1995

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery, classes

  Infant classes3

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Birmingham

  2,411

  8

  8,538

  27

  10,019

  31

  Coventry

  141

  2

  1,984

  22

  2,788

  31

  Dudley

  70

  1

  2,992

  36

  2,707

  33

  Sandwell

  128

  1

  4,537

  53

  2,840

  33

  Solihull

  0

  0

  1,880

  36

  1,949

  37

  Walsall

  839

  11

  3,557

  47

  2,465

  33

  Wolverhampton

  848

  12

  3,050

  42

  2,262

  31

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  3,003

  61

  1,679

  34

  Liverpool

  564

  4

  5,698

  42

  4,483

  33

  St. Helens

  80

  2

  1,605

  33

  1,574

  33

  Sefton

  318

  4

  2,440

  32

  2,507

  32

  Wirral

  319

  4

  1,954

  22

  2,933

  33

  Bolton

  491

  6

  2,694

  35

  2,618

  34

  Bury

  159

  3

  1,379

  27

  1,595

  31

  Manchester

  542

  4

  7,039

  50

  2,429

  17

  Oldham

  0

  0

  2,458

  37

  2,236

  34

  Rochdale

  912

  14

  1,233

  19

  2,112

  32

  Salford

  1,075

  16

  2,456

  37

  2,264

  34

  Stockport

  936

  12

  1,146

  15

  2,483

  33

  Tameside

  281

  4

  2,287

  35

  2,135

  33

  Trafford

  0

  0

  2,526

  42

  1,919

  32

  Wigan

  190

  2

  1,986

  23

  2,732

  32

  Barnsley

  181

  3

  2,812

  45

  1,101

  18

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  3,667

  45

  2,817

  34

  Rotherham

  403

  6

  2,924

  40

  1,160

  16

  Sheffield

  851

  6

  4,849

  35

  2,438

  18

  Bradford

  521

  3

  5,965

  40

  4,135

  28

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  1,946

  36

  1,866

  35

  Kirklees

  548

  5

  3,890

  35

  3,509

  31

  Leeds

  77

  0

  9,170

  46

  5,730

  29

  Wakefield

  481

  5

  4,363

  49

  1,770

  20

  Gateshead

  73

  1

  1,801

  35

  1,653

  32

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  622

  8

  2,295

  31

  2,289

  31

  North Tyneside

  226

  5

  2,468

  51

  1,682

  35

  South Tyneside

  454

  11

  1,781

  43

  1,388

  33

  Sunderland

  1,042

  13

  2,405

  29

  2,611

  31

  Avon

  1,799

  7

  3,434

  14

  7,930

  32

  Bedfordshire

  1,476

  9

  3,744

  23

  2,918

  18

  Berkshire

  2,203

  10

  4,657

  22

  777

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  571

  3

  2,469

  13

  3,100

  17

  Cambridge

  734

  4

  1,497

  8

  5,842

  31

  Cheshire

  869

  3

  4,614

  18

  8,323

  32

  Cleveland

  154

  1

  9,368

  59

  5,241

  33

  Cornwall4

  11l

  1

  1,555

  14

  3,617

  32

  Cumbria

  817

  7

  2,224

  18

  4,066

  33

  Derbyshire

  1,573

  6

  8,132

  32

  5,768

  23

  Devon

  315

  1

  2,697

  11

  4,240

  17

  Dorset

  0

  0

  841

  6

  5,000

  33

  Durham

  2,618

  16

  4,645

  29

  5,112

  32

  East Sussex

  258

  2

  1,367

  8

  5,186

  30

  Essex

  300

  1

  2,386

  6

  8,694

  21

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  27

  0

  4,616

  33

  Hampshire

  339

  1

  1,638

  4

  13,645

  32

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  1,682

  9

  2,953

  16

  Hertfordshire

  1,743

  6

  7,780

  28

  5,374

  19

  Humberside

  1,163

  5

  8,080

  33

  5,400

  22

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  175

  7

  922

  35

  Kent

  83

  0

  2,125

  5

  13,509

  33

  Lancashire

  3,664

  9

  4,466

  11

  12,867

  33

  Leicestershire

  51

  0

  5,219

  20

  4,762

  19

  Lincolnshire

  531

  4

  1,536

  11

  4,912

  34

  Norfolk

  404

  2

  857

  5

  5,646

  31

  North Yorkshire

  373

  2

  3,512

  20

  5,362

  30

  Northamptonshire

  616

  4

  2,429

  14

  5,478

  32

  Northumberland

  128

  2

  2,923

  40

  2,498

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  595

  2

  13,169

  48

  2,099

  8

  Oxfordshire

  1,079

  6

  2,148

  13

  1,317

  8

  Shropshire

  176

  2

  1,844

  17

  2,127

  19

  Somerset

  0

  0

  587

  5

  3,901

  33

  464 465

  Provision of education for under. fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in each Local Education Authority area in England—January 1995

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes3

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population2

  Staffordshire

  2,077

  7

  4,976

  18

  9,068

  32

  Suffolk

  101

  1

  2,977

  17

  2,591

  15

  Surrey

  428

  2

  2,635

  10

  7,078

  27

  Warwickshire

  759

  6

  1,425

  11

  4,228

  33

  West Sussex

  434

  2

  811

  5

  3,011

  17

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  577

  4

  3,388

  21

  England4 5

  52,558

  4

  303,462

  23

  343,824

  26

  1Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January 1995.

  2Pupils aged 3 and 4 years old expressed as a percentage of the 3 and 4 year old population at 31 December 1994.

  3Includes reception and other classes.

  4Includes the Isle of Scilly.

  5Includes the Corporation of London.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 14 December to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton),Official Report, column 738, if the new criteria to be applied to eligibility for the access to work scheme will exclude those disabled people who are seeking jobs through development of self-employment; and if she will make a statement. [9054]

  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. David Blunkett, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the eligibility for Access to Work of self-employed disabled people.
  The refocussing of Access to Work announced by the Secretary of State on 14 December applies to self-employed disabled people in exactly the same way as it does to disabled people who are employed. From 18 December applications will be considered only from people who, at the time of their application, have been unemployed for at least four weeks. This applies whether a person is entering self-employment or starting work as an employed person.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the changes in the criteria for eligibility introduced from 18 December 1995 will apply to those who have already made applications for assistance under access to work before that date; and if she will make a statement. [8954]

  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 front Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the eligibility for Access to Work of people who applied before 18 December.
  Everyone who made an application for Access to Work before 18 December, even if their application had not been decided at that date, will be eligible to be considered for support.
  466
  The announcement refocussed the support available from the Access to Work programme towards those who need it most—unemployed disabled people; and those to whom we have already made commitments. Those disabled people who are still eligible to apply for Access to Work will continue to be considered for the full range support available.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants for access to work who had made formal applications had been waiting three months or more, by 18 December 1995, for their applications to be processed. [8953]

  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. David Blunkett, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about waiting times for people who have made applications for Access to Work support.
  Access to Work is delivered locally through Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTS). Local managers are responsible for delivery and I have set them a target of completing action plans for 80% of Access to Work clients within 3 weeks of their applying. If the actual provision of the support is likely to take some time, PACTs seek alternative ways of helping the client.
  Local managers are responsible for monitoring the operation of Access to Work and for achieving the set targets. This level of detail of monitoring information is not kept centrally, and I cannot therefore say how many people have to wait for three months or more for their applications to be processed.
  However, we are undertaking a review of Access to Work and research to support the review has examined in detail the operation of the programme. This research will be published shortly.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sum of money is available under access to work in 1995–96; and what is the amount proposed for 1996–97. [8955]

  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.
  467
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the money available for Access to Work in 1995/96 and 1996/97.

  The amount of money allocated to the Access to Work programme for 1995/96 is £13.4m but, as the Secretary of State announced on 14 December, additional funds have been made available for this year. However, I cannot of course say what the total spend will be until the end of the year.

  The amount of money allocated to the programme for 1996/97 has been maintained at the planned level of £12.9m.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the access to work scheme; what has been the nature of these representations; and what her response has been. [9182]

  Mr. Paice
  Since the announcement about access to work, made on 14 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we have received requests for further clarification of the announcement; expressions of concern about the immediate measures taken; and requests for information about the review of the programme and its future operation. Replies have provided the clarification and information requested where appropriate.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to alter the access to work scheme; if extra funds will be made available; and if she will make a statement. [9181]

  Mr. Paice
  An announcement was made by the Secretary of State on 14 December 1995,Official Report column 738, about the access to work programme and its funding.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action heads of her Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if she will make a statement. [9150]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Employment Service offers, on a voluntary basis, pre-retirement courses to people approaching retirement. These courses will continue to be offered in future.

  The staff in the Teachers Pensions Agency, being employees of the Department for Education and Employment, are invited to attend a pre-retirement course when approaching retirement. There are no plans to discontinue the practice of providing pre-retirement courses for these staff.

  Provision of pre-retirement courses forms part of the recommended standards of principal civil service pension scheme service quality and delivery published by Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service).

  Nursery Education
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has made to enable local education authorities to recoup the costs of providing nursery education for children who are resident in neighbouring local education authorities; and if she plans to put the recoupment on a statutory basis. [8718]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local education authorities can recoup the costs of providing nursery education for pupils who are resident in neighbouring areas under voluntary agreements. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to remove such local discretion but will keep all the funding arrangements for nursery education under review.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to make sure that adequate resources are available for the provision of pre-school education for special needs children. [9052]

  Mr. Squire
  Vouchers will be available for all four year-olds. The responsibilities of local authorities to identify and make a statutory assessment of those children who may need a statement, to make a statement where appropriate and to satisfy themselves that provision is made available in accordance with the statement, remain unchanged.

  We are also considering requiring all providers in the private and voluntary sectors to have regard to the special education needs code of practice. We will discuss the impact of such a requirement with interested parties during the first phase.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial arrangements she will make to assist local education authorities who wish to offer education for under-fives on a full-time basis. [8725]

  Mr. Squire
  Local education authority budgets will be reduced by the voucher value only in respect of each four-year-old in a maintained school, taking termly attendance into account. Where LEAs spend in excess of the voucher value, on full-time places or otherwise, they will retain the funding to do so.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates her Department has made of shortfalls in respect of places for four-year-olds in(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster, (c) Kensington and Chelsea and (d) Norfolk expressed as (i) the number and (ii) the percentage of all four-year-olds in each local education authority. [8934]

  Mr. Squire
  Estimates of participation become less reliable when broken down by both year group and local education authority area. However, the best estimates of the number and percentage of four-year-olds in January 1995 in the phase 1 LEAs without a place in the maintained sector are given in the table:

  LEA

  Estimated number of four year olds without a place in the maintained sector in January 1995

  Estimated percentage of four year olds without a place in the maintained sector in January 1995

  Wandsworth

  700

  20

  Westminster

  800

  40

  469

  LEA

  Estimated number of four year olds without a place in the maintained sector in January 1995

  Estimated percentage of four year olds without a place in the maintained sector in January 1995

  Kensington and Chelsea

  850

  50

  Norfolk

  3000

  30

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what measures she will be taking to evaluate the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on provision for three-year-olds; [8930]

  (2) what measures she will be taking to evaluate the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on participation and educational attainment of children with special educational needs; [8928]

  (3) what measures she will be taking to evaluate the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on the educational attainment of the children involved; [8931]

  (4) what measures she will be taking to evaluate the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on participation and educational attainment of children from ethnic minority groups. [8929]

  Mr. Squire
  The effectiveness of voucher issue and redemption will be assessed using information provided by the voucher contractor. The standards of provision will become known as the inspection regime yields inspection reports. The longer-term impact of the scheme cannot be assessed until data are available on children's later educational achievements.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the number of Ofsted registered nursery education inspectors necessary to carry out inspections of voucher-redeeming institutions in(a) phase 1 and (b) phase 2 of the voucher scheme. [8936]

  Mr. Squire
  Initial planning estimates indicate that for the first and second phases of the scheme, some 200 and 4,000 registered nursery education inspectors respectively will be required. The precise number will depend mainly upon the number of providers who take part in the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information she intends to request of(a) the pilot local authorities, (b) pre-school providers, (c) Capita Managed Services Ltd. and (d) parents of four-year-olds in order to evaluate the operation of the nursery voucher scheme in phase 1. [8932]

  Mr. Squire
  Capita Managed Services Ltd. will provide information for the phase 1 areas on the number of institutions which have joined the scheme, as well as the issue and redemption of vouchers. The local authorities and participating institutions will be able to comment on the administrative arrangements. Any views made known by parents will also be carefully considered.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the number of inspections by Ofsted of voucher-redeeming 470
  institutions that will be required in (a) phase 1 and (b) phase 2 of the voucher scheme. [8937]

  Mr. Squire
  Setting aside maintained schools which are already subject to regular inspections by Ofsted, initial planning estimates indicate that for the first and second phases of the scheme some 600 and 12,000 inspections of voucher redeeming establishments will be required. The precise number will depend upon the number of providers who take part in the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if parents will be able to redeem their vouchers for nursery provision during school holidays. [8933]

  Mr. Squire
  The voucher will cover a minimum of 36 weeks spread over three terms. In maintained schools it will cover the full school term. In the private and voluntary sectors it will be open to providers to offer more provision.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery providers in the nursery voucher pilot scheme areas have been sent application forms; and how many providers have applied to participate in the scheme. [8727]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All local education authority-maintained schools in the phase 1 areas have been invited to apply either directly or through their LEA. All grant-maintained and independent schools, and institutions registered under the Children Act 1989 in these areas, have been sent application forms. The voucher contractor has so far received over 500 applications to join the scheme.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery voucher application forms have been sent out to parents in the nursery voucher pilot scheme areas. [8726]

  Mr. Squire
  Some 11,800 application forms were sent out in the first mailing.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she will give to nursery providers who wish to apply for loans for capital works on the strength of expected voucher income; and what expressions of interest have been made by financial institutions with regard to providing capital funding to nursery providers. [8730]

  Mr. Squire
  Providers in the private and voluntary sectors will be able to apply for commercial loans on the strength of voucher income. Subject to parliamentary approval, grant-maintained schools will be given the power to borrow. They and other maintained schools will be able to take advantage of the freedoms provided by the private finance initiative to enter into partnerships with the private sector. The Department does not retain information about financial institutions which wish to provide capital funding to nursery providers.

  Unemployment, Walthamstow
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit
  471
  disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Walthamstow. [8976]

  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 front Mike Fogden to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Walthamstow.
  The Employment Service (ES) does not record statistics relating to periods of disqualifications. However we do publish, quarterly, reports on the volumes of adjudicated decisions both nationally and by ES region. We are unable to provide adjudicated decision based on Parliamentary constituencies.
  The publication, entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions", details cases allowed and disqualified (or disallowed), by question type. The latest information can be obtained from the House of Commons library.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Walthamstow have experienced a period of unemployment since April 1992. [8974]

  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 front Mike Fogden to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding unemployment in Walthamstow.
  The Employment Service does not record statistics relating to the number of people who have experienced a period of unemployment.
  I can, however, advise you that the number of new claims for unemployment-related benefit made in the constituency of Walthamstow between April 1992 and November 1995 was 22,433. (Data obtained from Central Statistical Office—NOMIS)
  As this figure reflects the number of claims rather than the number of clients, people who have left and rejoined the register will have been recorded each time they made a new claim.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Nursery Education (Inspection)
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans she has made to provide additional training in early years education for Ofsted inspectors; [8729]

  (2) how many registered Ofsted inspectors have (a) early years teaching qualifications and (b) early years teaching experience. [8728]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Centres
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which areas the establishment of the primary literacy and numeracy 472
  centres link will relate to the activities of (a) universities and (b) colleges. [8878]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In selecting local education authorities to take part in the initiative, one of the criteria against which applications will be assessed is the quality of proposals for involving other partners, including higher education and the private sector, in supporting and extending the work.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what existing resources will be drawn on in the establishment of the primary literacy and numeracy centres. [8927]

  Mr. Squire
  A new grant for educational support and training specific grant will provide for £5 million of expenditure in 1996–97. The Department wrote to all local education authorities on 5 January inviting them to participate. That letter gives further details of how the project will be expected to link into current work in LEAs and draw upon work being carried out by other partners in the project, including Ofsted, the Basic Skills Agency, the Teacher Training Agency and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and I will arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number of places and (b) the total funding allocated by the Teacher Training Agency for (i) the primary and (ii) the secondary sector for 1996–97. [8879]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The allocation of student places and funding for initial teacher training is the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency. I have therefore asked the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was Ofsted's target number of inspections per year in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector in the current cycle; and what the actual number of inspections has been in both sectors for each year since the beginning of the cycle. [8956]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This 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.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what dates and on what matters, in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Enviornment", she has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport. [9098]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has no major direct interest in the royal commission's report, but we have been kept in touch with colleagues' consideration of the
  473
  issues. No such representations have been made by the Department, by the former Department for Education or by the former Employment Department.

  School Maintenance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has of the backlog of maintenance repairs in schools at the latest date for which figures are available. [8935]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Estimates based on a 1991 National Audit Office report suggest that the cost of maintenance repairs to local authority school buildings may be around £1.4 billion at current prices. However, since 1990–91, some £3.5 billion has been made available from all sources for capital work at all schools in England.

  Reading Tests
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those education authorities which carry out average reading score tests in(a) all or (b) some of their primary schools. [9051]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Work Funding
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of the evaluation of training for work funding pilots carried out by Coopers and Lybrand. [9520]

  Mr. Forth
  The evaluation cost £123,024.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the outcome figures for employment training in 1994 and for community action between April 1994 and March 1994; and if he will make a statement. [9694]

  Mr. Paice
  The information available is given in the table:

  Training for work/Community action

  England and Wales

  Percentage

  Proportion of leavers who:

  1994–95

  Were in a job1

  Obtained a positive outcome2

  Gained a qualification or a credit towards one

  Training for work

  38

  42

  45

  Community action

  15

  28

  n/a

  Notes: n/a—Information not applicable.

  1Full-time, part-time and self-employment

  2In a job. full-time education or other government training.

  Source:

  Training for work national follow-up survey, community action follow-up survey.

  Training
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to publish the plan compiled by the efficiency unit. designed to reduce 474
  administrative burdens and changes on training and enterprise councils and providers of training. [9702]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department published a report on 14 December following an efficiency scrutiny into the TEC contract and management fee. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will set out in domestic currency statutory national minimum wage, or the minimum wage established on the basis of collective bargaining, in key industries in each European Union state and in the United State of America, Sweden and Japan; if she will indicate the equivalent of each of these amounts in pounds sterling at purchasing power parity exchange rates; and what percentage of average earnings in each of these countries the current national minimum wage represents. [8341]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  The following table gives the current statutory national minimum wage for each European Union state, the United States of America and Japan in the domestic currency and each of these amounts at purchasing power parity exchange rates. The other information requested can he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum wage level Own currency

  At purchasing power parity1 exchange rates Sterling £

  Belgium

  BF 43,318 monthly

  739,77 monthly

  France

  FF 36.98 hourly

  3.60 hourly

  Greece

  Dr 5,338 daily

  17.00 daily

  Luxembourg

  LF 43,744 monthly

  689.73 monthly

  Netherlands

  Hfl 2,184 monthly

  653.15 monthly

  Portugal

  Esc 52,000 monthly

  276.06 monthly

  Spain

  Pts 64,920 monthly

  347.51 monthly

  USA

  $ 4.25 hourly

  2.71 hourly

  Japan

  2Y 554 hourly

  1.95 hourly

  Wage rates converted to UK equivalent using 1994 purchasing power parities from OECD Main Economic Indicators December 1995.

  2The lowest regional wage rate.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for her Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which her Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and the timescale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5975]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Department undertakes a broad programme of research and evaluation including studies to assess the attitudes of parents, clients, employers and others to the

  475
  Department's policies and programmes. The details requested are given in the table. Information on the Department's expenditure on projects is not listed as this is, in a number of cases, commercially confidential.

  The Department supports the "British Social Attitudes Survey" as part of a consortium of funders. The research is undertaken by Social Community Planning Research, SCPR. The survey covers a sample of 3,600 adults throughout Great Britain and surveys were conducted in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The findings are published by SCPR in November each year. The survey data are also deposited in the Economic and Social Research Council's data archive.

  The Employment Service has commissioned a national customer satisfaction survey each year since 1989. The seventh survey was commissioned in May 1995 with a small qualitative study. The main survey was commissioned in July 1995 and fieldwork commenced in November. Since 1993, the survey has been undertaken by Public Attitude Surveys Ltd. The most recent survey included 3,000 claimants and 1,500 non-claimants and covers Great Britain. Reports on all the surveys have been placed in the House of Commons Library and are available to members of the public on request.

  Quantitative and qualitative research into individuals'. attitudes towards lifetime learning was commissioned in May 1993. The studies were undertaken by Social and Community Planning Research. A total of 71 people took part in the qualitative phase in nine locations: Newcastle, Liverpool, London, Chester, Bedford, Diss (Norfolk), Pegswood (Northumberland), Butley (Suffolk) and Lamport (Northamptonshire). The quantitative survey involved 1,403 people throughout England. The qualitative study was completed in July 1993 and the main survey fieldwork was undertaken in September and October 1993. The results of both studies have been published in the Department's research series and are available to members of the public. Copies have also been placed in the House of Commons Library and with the Employment Select Committee.

  A project was commissioned in January 1995 to assess parent's level of knowledge about and attitudes towards education in schools. The project was undertaken by Counterpoint Research. Approximately 120 parents were involved in the survey in eight locations throughout England and Wales: Newcastle, Leeds/Bradford, Bristol, Birmingham, inner London, suburban London, Cardiff and Oakham. The Department has produced a short summary of the main findings and copies have been lodged with the citizens charter unit.

  In addition, the Department has commissioned a number of projects to develop and evaluate its publicity campaigns. Since April 1994 a summary of findings from these projects has been made available to interested parties on request. Details of these projects are as listed.

  Project:

  Grant-maintained schools

  Purpose:

  Assessing parental awareness

  Date commissioned:

  February 1993

  Agency:

  Audience selection

  Timescale:

  Four days

  Sample size:

  413

  Location:

  North and South

  476

  Project:

  National Curriculum testing of seven.

  11 and 14-year-olds

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of publicity campaign

  Date commissioned:

  February 1993

  Agency:

  British Market Research Bureau

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  600

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  "It's Your Choice" booklet

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  February 1993

  Agency:

  Diagnostics

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  Eight group interviews

  Location:

  North and South

  Project:

  Teacher recruitment

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  March 1993

  Agency:

  Carne Martin

  Timescale:

  Three months

  Sample size:

  Ten group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  National Curriculum testing of seven,

  11 and 14-year-olds

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  March 1993

  Agency:

  Ted Hudson

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  Seven group interviews

  Location:

  Selection of inner city, suburban and shire

  areas

  Project:

  National Curriculum testing of seven,

  11 and 14-year-olds

  Purpose:

  Assessing parents' views on new

  arrangements for testing

  Date commissioned:

  May 1993

  Agency:

  Bulmershe Research

  Timescale:

  Four days

  Sample size:

  1,037

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Parent's Charter

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  June 1993

  Agency:

  Counterpoint

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  Eight group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Further and Higher Education Charters

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  June 1993

  Agency:

  Diagnostics

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  14 groups

  Location:

  Liverpool, Birmingham, London,

  Nottingham and Manchester

  Project:

  DFE exhibitions—touring roadshow for

  parents

  Purpose:

  Campaign evaluation

  Date commissioned:

  July 1993

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  605

  Location:

  At roadshow venues

  477

  Project:

  Grant-maintained schools

  Purpose:

  Assessing parental awareness

  Date commissioned:

  July 1993

  Agency:

  Bulmershe Research

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  200

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  School performance tables

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  July 1993

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  50

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  "Your Child's New School" leaflet

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  August 1993

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  69

  Location:

  Newcastle and Chatham

  Project:

  Further and Higher Education Charters

  Purpose:

  Effectiveness evaluation

  Date commissioned:

  September 1993

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  Three months

  Sample size:

  1,000

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Human resource development exhibition

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of participation

  Date commissioned:

  October 1993

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  115

  Location:

  At exhibition venue

  Project:

  Grant-maintained schools

  Purpose:

  Assessing parental awareness

  Date commissioned:

  November 1993

  Agency:

  Marianne Ridgewell

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  S group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Proposed parental involvement publicity

  campaign

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  November 1993

  Agency:

  One World Research

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  Three group interviews

  Location:

  London, Birmingham and Manchester

  Project:

  School performance tables

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of information in 1993 tables

  Date commissioned:

  January 1994

  Agency:

  Audience Selection/GD Research

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  600

  Location:

  Islington, Stockport, Peterborough and

  Birmingham

  Project:

  National Curriculum Testing of 7, 11 and 14

  year olds

  Purpose:

  Ascertaining current perceptions among

  teachers

  Date commissioned:

  January 1994

  Agency:

  Audience Selection

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  500

  Location:

  Islington, Stockport, Peterborough,

  Birmingham

  478

  Project:

  National Curriculum Testing of 7, 11 and 14

  year olds

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of 1993 publicity campaign

  Date commissioned:

  January 1994

  Agency:

  British Market Research Bureau

  Timescale:

  Three months

  Sample size:

  1,000

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Educational Provision for Under 5s

  Purpose:

  Assessing parental views on provision

  Date commissioned:

  March 1994

  Agency:

  Bulmershe Research

  Timescale:

  Four days

  Sample size:

  500

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Updated Parent's Charter

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of publicity campaign

  Date commissioned:

  June 1994

  Agency:

  Research Surveys of Great Britain

  Timescale:

  Three months

  Sample size:

  2,000

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Schools Update booklet

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of booklet

  Date commissioned:

  July 1994

  Agency:

  Reflexions

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  400 individuals and six group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  DFE Exhibitions—Touring Roadshow for

  Parents 1994

  Purpose:

  Campaign evaluation

  Date commissioned:

  July 1994

  Agency:

  Alpha Research

  Timescale:

  Five weeks

  Sample size:

  239

  Location:

  Roadshow locations

  Project:

  Parents' Information Needs

  Purpose:

  Assessing parents' attitudes to different

  sources of information on education

  Date commissioned:

  September 1994

  Agency:

  Counterpoint

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  15 group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  School Performance Tables

  Purpose:

  Creative development

  Date commissioned:

  September 1994

  Agency:

  GD Research

  Timescale:

  One week

  Sample size:

  24

  Location:

  Islington, Stockport, Wolverhampton and

  Capel St. Mary

  Project:

  School Performance Tables

  Purpose:

  Publicity campaign evaluation

  Date commissioned:

  November 1994

  Agency:

  Audience Selection

  Timescale:

  Four months

  Sample size:

  900

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Parents' Information Needs

  Purpose:

  Assessing parents' attitudes to different

  sources of information on education

  Date commissioned:

  March 1995

  Agency:

  Research Surveys of Great Britain

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  2,000

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  479

  Project:

  The role of Skill—National Bureau for

  Students with Disabilities

  Purpose:

  Identifying the information needs of students

  with disabilities

  Date commissioned:

  March 1995

  Agency:

  British Market Research Bureau

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  2,000

  Location:

  South East, West Midlands, Devon, Swansea

  Project:

  Grant-Maintained Schools

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of GM publications

  Date commissioned:

  April 1995

  Agency:

  Reflexions

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  72

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  National School Tests

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of regional radio publicity

  Date commissioned:

  May 1995

  Agency:

  Martin Hamblin Research

  Timescale:

  Five days

  Sample size:

  522

  Location:

  Bristol, Birmingham, Newcastle and

  Nottingham

  480

  Project:

  Parents' Information Needs

  Purpose:

  Assessing parents' attitudes to different

  sources of information

  Date commissioned:

  October 1995

  Agency:

  Counterpoint

  Timescale:

  One month

  Sample size:

  14 group interviews

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  School Performance Tables

  Purpose:

  Evaluation of information in the 1995 tables

  Date commissioned:

  October 1995

  Agency:

  Audience Selection

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  900

  Location:

  North, Midlands and South

  Project:

  Nursery Education Vouchers

  Purpose:

  Publicity evaluation and planning

  Date commissioned:

  December 1995

  Agency:

  British Market Research Bureau

  Timescale:

  Two months

  Sample size:

  300

  Location:

  Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and

  Chelsea

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

War Widows' Pensions
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend eligibility to war widows pension, payable since 1978, to potential widows who married after 1964, in the light of similar entitlement under the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, under the rules of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, before 1978, a widow had to be married to her husband while he was still in the Armed Forces to qualify for a pension. From 6th April 1978 the entitlement was extended to the widows of those servicemen who married after retirement. We have no plans to extend the provision retrospectively to recognise service before 1978. Provision for widows' benefits, regardless of the date of marriage, has been a feature of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme since it was first established. Both the funding of that scheme and the levels of contribution have taken this into account.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but would he accept that the scheme as conceived and as implemented is not only arbitrary but also anomalous? Further, can my noble friend say whether further consideration may be given to such disentitlements? I have in mind, as an example, the potential widow of Lieutenant Colonel David Hunter MC of the Royal Marines, who married again after the death of his first wife in 1974. That man had seen 25 years of armed service. He was put in the bag in 1940 and spent most of his captivity in Colditz.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand very well that there are cases such as the one mentioned by my noble friend which involve considerable hardship. There is no doubt that the introduction of any change to a pension scheme can cause seeming unfairness. The recognition of post-retirement marriages was one of a number of major improvements which were made to public-service pension schemes in the 1970s. Each of those improvements was introduced from a fixed and current date. The government of the day felt—and I have no reason to criticise their view—that none of those improvements could have been afforded if they had had to be extended retrospectively to recognise previous service. That remains the position today.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does it not seem quite extraordinary that a man who has lost his first wife and
356
who has, presumably, been paying the contributions like anyone else should not be able to get the benefit for the second wife after he has remarried? It is difficult to follow the logic. It seems to me to be very inconsistent. The Minister has already told us that such great expenditure cannot possibly be afforded, but how much would it really amount to?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we simply do not know the number of post-retirement marriages contracted before April 1978. Therefore, it is only possible to make a stab at how much it would cost. The estimate that we have made is that it would cost about £60 million in total for the Armed Forces to recognise all service prior to 1978. As I said earlier, any changes in the rules of a pension scheme are bound to introduce what are regarded by some as anomalies. However, one can only afford to make such changes if one does so from a fixed and certain date.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that such an extension was the subject of an amendment to the Pensions Bill when it was before your Lordships' House? Indeed, the Government did not support it. Does the noble Earl further agree that, whatever unfairness is introduced—the Minister frankly recognised that there will be unfairness; and there is unfairness—it is up to the Government to ensure that at least the least unfair option be chosen? That is not the case at present.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if I may say so, that was not the view in the mid-1970s of the government of the party that the noble Lord represents. They decided—and successive governments have taken the same view—that improvements to a pension scheme are certainly desirable. However, the question then is how to introduce those improvements. The route chosen by the then government, and, indeed, subsequently by this Government, was to do so progressively. That, I suggest, is the sensible course.
Lord Desai: My Lords, what is the maximum number of widows who may be involved? The noble Earl may not know the exact number, but can he not indicate the maximum number? I am sure that even the maximum is not a very large number.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, we simply do not know the number of post-retirement marriages that were contracted before April 1978. It is only possible to make an estimate. It is not simply a matter of how much this would cost, it is also a matter of principle. To change the terms of an occupational pension scheme retrospectively is not a route we should go down.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I understand the arguments that the noble Earl has put forward and I accept most of them. However, in the light of the widespread concern about this situation, will he not ask his right honourable friend whether the Government will look at the problem again to see whether there is a case for a change in this particular instance?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I very much respect the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am sure that

357
this debate will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friend. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, a number of suggested changes in connection with the Armed Forces Pension Scheme were recommended by the committee chaired by Sir Michael Bett on the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces. The Government are looking at that report carefully and we shall announce our response later in the year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to look again, with an open mind, at the anomaly in relation to the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme? It is all very well, but the members of that pension scheme are not on active service and are not exposed to any form of danger.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. With great respect to him, I believe that the guiding principle is that improvements to occupational pension schemes are made on the basis that they benefit only those giving service on or after the appropriate date. That principle is completely unaffected by Parliament's recent approval of an amendment to the parliamentary scheme. The change will only affect those who are still serving Members of Parliament. Those who had ceased to be MPs at the introduction of the improvement will not benefit from it. That is a far cry from what is requested within the scope of this Question.

Prescriptions: Men over Sixty
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the annual cost to public funds of implementing the decision of the European Court in the Richardson case on the implementation by the United Kingdom of European Directive 79/7/EEC in respect of free prescriptions for men from the age of 60.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we estimate that the cost of giving free prescriptions to men between the ages of 60 and 65 is about £40 million a year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that factual Answer. Is it not therefore a fact that, without any decision by either House of the British Parliament or the British Government, this change is being effected in quite an expensive aspect of our social security system merely at the dictation of the European Court of Human Rights?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the directive was agreed by the United Kingdom in 1978, when a Labour Government was in power. We signed up to the European Union, and the European Court is part of that. It has final jurisdiction in these matters and we accept the ruling of the Court.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that during discussions in both another
358
place and in this House there was no mention that Directive 79/7/EEC would apply to matters such as prescription charges? It was meant to apply only to social security matters. Therefore, without being told the purpose, the other place was forced by the Court's decision to levy taxation of £l40 million on a continuing basis without having given its express opinion on the matter. As the noble Baroness will be aware, and as no doubt she can confirm, if this had been a decision of a British court, Parliament could have altered the decision. However, because it is European law we are not permitted to do so. Is it not about time that Parliament revised and amended Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to give us back that power?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that that was precisely why we contested the case. We felt that the arrangements were outside the scope of the EC directive. However, the Court ruled otherwise. We accepted that ruling and took immediate steps to implement it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the acceptance of the ruling involves acceptance of the European Court being able to decide rates of benefit in our social security system in this country? If that is really my noble friend's view of the state of the arrangements, is it not time that they were altered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have to comply with the European Court ruling.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Why?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we cannot renege on the original commitments that we made when we signed the declaration joining the European Union. The Court has ruled that way. As I said, we contested it and fought a hard battle. However, the Court did not find in our favour. As we comply with the law, we have accepted the ruling and have taken immediate steps to implement it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction from patients, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession about the way in which prescription charges are levied? Many of them consider that there are people over the age of 60 who could well afford to pay for their prescriptions. Is the Department of Health reviewing the matter? That may be a way of getting round the problem.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we reviewed prescription charges in 1993. At that time we decided not to alter the categories of exemption. I think that it is very unlikely that we would review them again.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it was honouring the principle of equal treatment for men and women that led us down the path which has been agreed in the treaty? The British Government decided that, in fairness to women, rather than increasing the age at which women have to pay for

359
prescription charges to 65, it should be brought down to 60 for men. It was a decision by the British Government in order to promote more fairness.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the men in this country should rejoice in our decision.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the overall concerns about rising prescription costs surely have more to do with the fact that the Government are not doing enough to achieve effective prescribing by doctors. Does the Minister recall the National Audit Commission's report which stated that over £400 million could be saved if the Government were to encourage general practitioners to achieve more effective prescribing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness is right that there are doctors who could prescribe more effectively. However, it is interesting to note that those doctors who became fund-holders after the NHS reforms which we introduced have been shown to he more effective prescribers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this issue is far more important than whether there should be equality of treatment between men and women on prescription charges? The important issue is whether the European Court of Justice should be able to impose on the House of Commons the necessity to raise tax without the House of Commons having first being told.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very aware that that is the view of some Members of your Lordships' House. But as my noble friend Lady Elles said, we have signed up to the Treaty of Rome; and it is quite right that we should comply with decisions of the European Court.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, would this case ever have arisen if the Labour Government had bitten the bullet as regards equalisation of pension ages?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I doubt it.

The Magistracy: Indemnification agaiinst Costs
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are yet in a position to offer indemnity to lay magistrates in the event of a successful appeal for costs by a defendant.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 already provides for a magistrate to be indemnified against costs orders. A magistrate is entitled to indemnity provided he or she acted reasonably and in good faith.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply, which
360
will be partly reassuring to the magistracy. However, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety within that service because of the danger that magistrates may be taken to appeal and have damages found against them? Some magistrates are talking of resigning from the service. As this problem has been in existence for some years, will he undertake as a matter of some urgency to bring forward a solution which will be equitable with others in the legal service?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, justices of the peace already have immunity in certain matters. They have an indemnity in respect of costs, as I have just explained. They have immunity against actions arising from matters within their jurisdiction. That immunity is complete. They also have immunity in matters outside their jurisdiction, except where it is proved that the magistrate acted in bad faith.
I think that magistrates are currently concerned that Section 53 provides an indemnity only against costs. They are anxious to go further and tc have immunity against costs. That obviously would involve primary legislation. However, as the noble Viscount indicated, it has ramifications for other members of the judiciary. I hope that we may be able to do something in this area. Obviously consultation would have to precede anything that we did. I am hoping that we might be able to go so far as a consultation at least by the middle of the year.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the main concern of the magistrates is that they do not qualify for the indemnity unless they establish not only that they acted in good faith, hut that they acted reasonably—an obligation which does not apply to the rest of the judiciary?
Is it not the view of my noble and learned friend and his department that the immunity should be provided unless the justices of the peace acted in bad faith? If that were so, and as that would require legislation, would my noble and learned friend confirm that if I were to put down the appropriate amendment to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill the Government would support it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I indicated, there is a distinction between indemnity in respect of costs and immunity in respect of actions. Immunity obtains in respect of actions so long as the justice acts in good faith, or at least is not proved to have acted in bad faith.
The situation is different in respect of costs arising incidentally in applications which are not actions against the magistrates. There the position of the judiciary as a whole varies. It is not uniform. I believe that it would be premature to seek to legislate on this matter in a statute or a Bill concerned only with criminal procedure when there are many ramifications of such a change in the law which should properly be taken into account. I should prefer to have a full consultation on this matter before steps were taken to alter the legislation.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend possibly hurry up the consultations? I believe that he referred to the middle of the year. It is

361
a matter of great urgency. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, made about magistrates now seeking to resign is most unwelcome. Perhaps an impression could be given that the Government will not waste any time in getting on with the consultation. Can my noble and learned friend give us that assurance?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would find it most unwelcome if magistrates were seeking to resign on this ground. It is quite clear that there is no real basis for any fear which would require them to do so. As I say, the law already provides for a magistrate to be indemnified against costs orders so long as he or she acted reasonably and in good faith. That is a pretty secure type of indemnity. However, as I said, I am anxious to do my best to deal with the concerns expressed by the magistrates. I believe that a consultation which has to affect not only the magistrates but other members of the judiciary requires to be fairly thorough. Therefore, to produce a paper by the middle of the year which covers all those aspects is going forward as fast as the nature of the subject matter requires.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is it right to say that, if a magistrate is sitting with a judge at a Crown Court, the salaried judge can be confident of immunity from a possible claim for damages whereas the unpaid magistrate cannot? Do not such anomalies undermine the need for urgency and the hope that the consultations will result in an early solution, given that there seems to be an increase in the number of claims for damages?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I explained, justices of the peace have immunity against claims for damages, unless a justice is acting without jurisdiction and in bad faith. Thus magistrates are immune as regards claims for damages, except in that limited respect which one would expect to happen rarely, if at all.
The problem relates to costs, and the nature of the liability for costs must be taken into account. It varies considerably according to the position of the individual in the judiciary. The question is not simple and I hope that I am giving your Lordships every indication that I wish to address the problem with as much urgency as possible. I have very much at heart the interests of the lay magistrates who are unpaid, who give their services voluntarily and out of their own time. In order to secure their position properly, the matter needs to be considered. It is not a new problem which has arisen overnight; it has just been focused by certain developments. The nature of the problem is older and it requires considerable examination in depth before Parliament is invited to bring forward solutions.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his remarks will be welcomed not only by magistrates but also the magistracy? As he is aware, the problem also affects justices' clerks.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful that anything I say should be welcomed by magistrates or others. The noble Viscount raised the position of
362
justices' clerks. For the most part they are paid members of the legal profession—although perhaps they do not consider their remuneration excessive—and their interests in securing any kind of indemnity or immunity is also important. A number of matters need to be taken into account and the noble Viscount's question helps to illustrate the multiplicity of problems that can arise.

Electronic Tagging of Offenders
3.2 p.m.
Lord Vernon Lord Vernon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the system of "tagging" prisoners on their release from custody, which they have already introduced on an experimental basis in certain areas, has potential for wider application.
: My Lords, the current scheme is not for prisoners on release from custody. The noble Lord is referring to the trials being conducted in Greater Manchester, Berkshire and Norfolk of the electronic monitoring of curfew orders, which are sentences imposed by the courts.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that co-operation between the probation service and the private companies which operate the tagging system is vitally important? Will she agree that the present hostility—or perhaps I should say unofficial but substantive hostility—by the probation service to the whole system of tagging could he prejudicial to the introduction of the scheme, which is widely successful in many western European countries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says. So far the trials have already demonstrated that the equipment works well and that the curfew orders provide a highly controllable and flexible restriction of liberty. It is true that some members of the probation service are hostile to the whole notion of the sentence and that its co-operation is important to the success of the trial. It is in everyone's interest that we find an effective community sentence that will add to the sentences available to the courts. In turn, that will mean that fewer people will go to prison, and it could even act as a preventive measure. I take the noble Lord's point and have some sympathy with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not true that there have been only 17 cases in which magistrates have awarded a sentence of electronic tagging? In that situation, how can it possibly be said that the experiment is a success? Is not this the case? There is not only the reluctance of the magistrates and the probation service to using that method of control but there are technical problems with the equipment. Are there not a number of examples of people who, despite tagging, nevertheless continue to offend? Under those circumstances, is it not a waste of money to spend a further £1 million on the experiment? Should not tagging be left to theme parks and Disneyland, where it belongs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is more than 17 cases; it is 21. There is no fault with the equipment, which has

363
not failed on one single occasion since it has been in use. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, is important: the system requires co-operation from the probation service. However, in its limited way it has also provided an effective community sentence. Magistrates have asked for an extension of the area and it has been granted. They have since also asked for an extension of the time, and I am considering the matter.
Perhaps I may pose a question to the noble Lord. Is he really saying that it is not even worth pursuing an additional effective community sentence? If successful, it could work both as a method of preventing further crime and, as in Sweden, where it has been trialled successfully, it could act as an alternative to short-term prison sentences and would prove more cost-effective.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister should not anticipate the general election and ask me to answer questions before the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that the experiment is not even worth trying, it is only fair to say that we are in the business of looking for effective community sentences. I would expect at least the noble Lord's co-operation in doing what we can to produce effective and cost-effective community sentences which may in turn reduce the prison population.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain in what way the scheme is different from the one previously tried out in Nottingham? That was a resounding non-success, to put it mildly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a good deal of difference about it. The principal difference is that the equipment is much more sophisticated and reliable. From everything we have seen, since the scheme has been under way not a single breach has taken place where the equipment has failed. That is the principal difference.
Lord Annan: My Lords, surely everyone recognises that we must do all we can to reduce the number of people who go to prison, even though they may have committed crimes. Otherwise, how can we achieve better conditions in the prisons? Everyone knows that that is a major problem. Surely, therefore, the Minister will agree that it is right that we should try any experiment which will help with the matter. If the experiment proves to be a failure, so much the worse, but if it proves to be a success then we shall have achieved something.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's comments. We should all keep an open mind on the experiment; it is in everyone's interests that it should be a success. We know that the equipment works and that in certain circumstances it is an effective community sentence. I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, made, that it would be even better if it had the full co-operation of the probation service.
364
We know that magistrates are doing what they can to make it an effective additional sentence available to the courts.

Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Direct payments]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 1, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("Services,") to the end of line 12.
The noble Lord said: By way of preamble, may I say how glad I am sure the whole Committee is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, back in her place on the Front Bench. I trust that she has fully recovered from her indisposition. I also trust that it has left her in a good mood to face the amendments to which she will respond this afternoon.
I suspect I am not alone in having had to do some hurried rethinking on what I propose to say in the light of the last-minute access to the consultative document. We have in front of us a number of amendments alike in purpose but different in character, all dealing to some extent with issues now discussed in the consultative document. I speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 1 and 38.
I notice that the copy of the consultative document that the Minister's officials kindly faxed to MENCAP was timed at 19.14 on Friday, which indicates some after-normal-hours work in the Department of Health which ought to be acknowledged. It is a pity, however, that there could not have been a longer gap between the publication and this debate.
Since the document has been published, and since it clarifies the Government's intentions on the scope of the direct payments arrangements, I can helpfully tighten up my remarks on my related amendments. Those amendments would remove the Government's regulation-making powers and, as a necessary counterpart, prevent local authorities excluding whole

365
categories of potential beneficiaries. Contrary to the apparent instinct of other participants in this debate, I see no great virtue in preventing the Government discriminating while allowing local authorities to discriminate.
The reason for my amendments is straightforward. I want those who have learning disabilities who are in a position to benefit from the new option, and want to benefit, to have that chance.
There are perhaps two counter-arguments inherent or explicit in the consultative document. The first is that it is better to start with physically disabled people of working age and learn from their experience. With respect, I do not believe that we can learn more about accommodating the particular needs of people with learning disabilities from a scheme limited to people with physical disabilities; and I do not see what is to be gained by covering people with learning and additional physical disabilities—which is another option tabled—though that is certainly better than restricting the option solely to people with physical disabilities. People with learning disabilities are included in existing not dissimilar schemes. That provides a starting-point in experience.
The second argument that needs to be addressed is this. If local authorities do not have to run any sort of direct payments scheme, why tie their hands as to the sort of scheme they choose to run? My answer is that I do not favour authorising unfair discrimination. Authorising local authorities not to open a particular option to anyone seems marginally more in line with good practice than authorising them to indulge in unfair discrimination against some potential beneficiaries.
I raise one final point. I do not see a huge rush of people immediately anxious to take over the somewhat onerous task of buying their own support package. That reinforces my view, which other noble Lords clearly share, that it is wrong to restrict entitlement to a very narrow band among those who want to pursue this option. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, and speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 38 and 44 in this grouping. We strongly support Amendment No. 1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and Amendment No. 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which she will no doubt move in a moment. Amendments Nos. 2 and 44, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Carter are probing amendments. They seek simply to press the Minister on her thinking. The first would leave eligibility to be defined by regulation; the second would remove the power of the Secretary of State to determine by regulation who would be eligible for direct payments. They cancel each other out. We do not want either amendment, except as a probe.
Our view on these Benches is clear. We do not believe that the Secretary of State should determine, either by schedule or by regulation, who should or
366
should not be eligible for direct payments made by the local authority in lieu of services. There are two broad reasons for our view.
First, we believe that anybody suffering from any type of disability may be suitable, and should be eligible, for direct payments rather than services. Such people should not be debarred by a priori category, by stereotype, whether on grounds of age or by type of disability. Someone who is 66 may be better able to cope with direct payments than someone who is 46. Someone with a moderate educational learning difficulty may nonetheless have a greater capacity and willingness, particularly if they are in sheltered accommodation, than someone with a severe physical disability which leaves them frail, poorly and sometimes confused. In other words, whether someone is suitable for direct payments should be assessed individual by individual. There should not be blanket category exclusions.
If this Bill means anything, it means putting a disabled person and that person's needs at the centre of the care system; and that such people are seen as individuals, empowered to make their own decisions, and not as a category for whom decisions are made by the Secretary of State, the local authority or the care professionals. That is what the Bill is about. This first amendment seeks to deliver the purpose of the Bill.
My second reason for supporting the amendment (as I have said, we do not believe in category blanket exclusions irrespective of the individual competence of the person concerned) and why we are opposed to the Secretary of State ruling out in advance that certain people should be eligible is this. While everyone should be eligible—and not everyone will be suitable—the decision, the exercise of discretion, should he made locally by informed professional social workers and not at the centre by a Secretary of State who cannot know the individual circumstances involved.
Local authorities regularly exercise discretion, through professional and trained social workers, in all sorts of sensitive issues from child abuse to adoption and the like. It is a discretion informed by professional judgment. That is why we have social workers. Why then should a Secretary of State seek to double-guess or to preclude social workers from exercising their discretion where they believe that direct payments arc in the best interest of the individual and, in terms of value for money, in the best interest of the authority'? Why should the Secretary of State double-guess the professionals who are trained to do the job on the ground?
This amendment is necessary because these lines in the Bill are not. The only test for direct payments should he: is the person in need; has he or she been assessed as requiring community care services; does it represent value for money for the authority; and is it in the best interests of that individual that he or she should receive direct payments rather than services? We do not need the Secretary of State to exercise discretion on behalf of professionals and to limit the discretion of local authorities. That will stifle innovation, inhibit value for

367
money and subvert the purpose of the Bill, which is to put the needs of the disabled individual at the centre of the care system. We support these amendments.
The Chairman of Committees: As Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are also being spoken to, I should point out to the Committee at this early stage that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): First, let me say how good it is to see the noble Baroness the Minister in her place. I hope that she is recovering well.
I should like to support most warmly Amendment No. 1, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and also Amendment No. 38, which is his proposed new clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also put her name to Amendment No. 1. The amendments would remove the exclusion on whole categories of people being eligible, with which I agree absolutely.
My amendment, Amendment No. 3, is also a probing amendment. It is framed to exclude age and form of disability and I tabled it in order to see what the Government have in mind. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I do not feel that it is appropriate to assume that everyone with some particular disabling condition or indeed a degree of disability has or has not the same ability to handle his or her own affairs.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, some local authorities already include in their direct payment schemes, for example, people with learning disabilities. So, if the regulations exclude them, we shall return to the ridiculous situation in which we have been for some time, whereby local authorities are forced to operate either illegally or through a third party or to stop giving the payments to that group of people. I also feel very strongly that it is not appropriate to assume that all people of a given age are equally capable of looking after their own affairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, someone of 60 or 70 may be far more capable of organising his affairs than another person of 30 or 40 years old and, of course, vice versa.
I have some questions about age to ask the Minister, to which I hope she will reply. First, if there is an age limit on eligibility, will those who are already in the scheme be able to continue with it? I asked that question at Second Reading on 7th December (Official Report, col. 1060) but I cannot find a reply from the Minister. What is the lower age limit? Is it 16, 18 or what age? Might it even be sensilble to consider payments being made to adults for disabled children to give them more freedom and flexibility within their lives? At Second Reading (Hansard, col. 1051) the Minister said that she would consider carefully what people have to say before deciding. That gives me some hope.
In relation to age, there is no financial consideration to be taken into account, which is so often the reason for age limiting new claimants, because the service will still be available, just not the option of the freedom and independence of choosing direct payments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that age will not he a criterion governing eligibility. Otherwise,
368
along with Amendment No. 38 by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we might need another new clause which will state that regard shall not be had to age.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I apologise for being out of breath. I have just come straight from Heathrow. My usual flight from Inverness, which is near my home, was much delayed by fog at Heathrow. It was a beautiful, fine, sunny and clear day at Inverness. I arrived just in time to hear the beginning of the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and perhaps I may congratulate her on becoming a Dame in the New Year Honours.
Almost all the groups of amendments on the Marshalled List and this amendment apply to the first three clauses in the Bill, which are concerned with England and Wales. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with Scotland and there are only three amendments to Clause 4. Two of those amendments are in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It would have been unnecessary duplication for us to table in the Scottish part of the Bill amendments similar to those for Clause I. It would also make the Bill complicated to follow, as the Scottish part of the Bill simply amends the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act. The whole point of the two Scottish clauses is to make changes by amending that Act. That would have been difficult to follow. I believe that it is sensible to discuss in Committee today points raised in amendments for England and Wales. If any changes of principle are accepted today, I should expect similar amendments to be considered for the Scottish part of the Bill at Report stage.
That may seem to be a paradox. In Scotland direct payments have been made in recent years by local authorities and made legally in certain circumstances under Scottish legislation. They were found to be illegal in England and Wales and payments had to be made indirectly through third parties. It is also the experience in Scotland that has helped illustrate that a direct payments system works well. It is preferred by the clients, who choose it, and can be cost-effective, giving better value for money.
Now that the Government, through this Bill, are proposing a new system within community care, it makes sense to have uniformity in the arrangements throughout Great Britain. Accordingly, we are not surprised to find new provisions for Scotland in Clauses 4 or 5, although a system has been operating successfully in Scotland. I just wanted to say at an early stage of the Bill that it will save the time of the Committee to consider these points of principle concerning England and Wales, so that we can, if necessary, consider similar points for Scotland at a later stage.
Lord Addington: Briefly, I should like to support all those who have spoken so far. I support in particular Amendment No. 3, on which I added my name to that of the noble Baroness. If we are to dress people as individuals, there is no use putting in categories and then assessing them as individuals. People who have a disability must he taken first as individuals. As the

369
noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, unless one pays attention first and foremost to the individual, effectively one is discriminating.
A great deal of the time of this parliamentary Session and the last one has already been spent on trying to obtain legislation to stop discrimination against disabled people. Surely bringing the Bill into line with that is in accordance with government thinking. I hope that the Government will take on board one very simple fact. Every time one establishes a category of people, immediately a sub-category is envisaged to go with it. In the matter of disabilities, that is very much the case.
I use the example of people who have bad eyesight. That category includes every single Member of this Chamber who needs to wear glasses and those who are blind. Are we to say quite succinctly that people with bad eyesight are excluded? If so, we shall simply exclude whole groups who need glasses simply to read. That is an extreme example, but that kind of logic is inherent in the Bill as it stands now.
Lord Swinfen: I too should like to support this group of amendments. I can see no reason why the Government should oppose the principle behind them. After all, they set up the Independent Living Fund. I understand that some 18 per cent. of those who obtain funds from the Independent Living Fund to buy their own care are people with learning disabilities.
If the faculties of those who reach and go beyond the age of 65 suddenly were to go and they were not able to manage their own affairs properly and needed that to be done for them by the local authority, then the effectiveness of this Chamber would be very considerably reduced. We know that there are vast numbers in this Chamber over that age who give extremely good service and very good advice. I am sure that none of us would wish to be without them.
The local authorities are quite capable of using their discretion and local knowledge to help with financial grants those who need help to manage their own affairs. They have to answer to the district auditor for the way in which their funds are spent and ultimately to the local voters if it is felt that the funds are not being properly handled. I should have thought that they could manage things quite happily themselves without restrictions on the type of person to whom grants could be made.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Generally speaking, in relation to these amendments, I should like to raise two points with the Minister referring back to some of the comments made at Second Reading.
First, if the Government feel that people with certain kinds of disability are unable to handle their financial affairs—I imagine that is why they are proposing to exclude them—or they are too old to do so (though, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out, some of us beyond the age suggested seem to be able to manage our financial affairs fairly well) surely one of the ways in which that can be dealt with, contrary to what is contained in the Bill, to my disappointment, is for the
370
carer to be the person who receives the money once that is agreed with the disabled person concerned. It is unfortunate that the Bill as it now stands does not include carers in the categories of people entitled to receive the grants. That is a point which would make it much easier to deal with the problems raised.
Secondly, can we get one point clear? Surely it is not for local authorities to say who will be paid directly; it is for the disabled individual concerned. Of course, the local authority must agree; but it is for the individuals to say whether or not they want to receive the money directly in order to be able to use it to buy the services that they require. It is with them that the decision should lie in the first place.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: I support the amendments. However, can the Minister give us some indication of what is to be contained in the regulations? That would be extremely helpful.
I believe I am right in saying that local authorities make the assessments and therefore they should know, if they make them correctly, who can manage and who cannot. Flexibility is therefore extremely important. Some families will manage, though they may need help if a crisis arises, and other families will not—they may spend the money on the lottery. There should be some flexibility.
Baroness Faithfull: I blame myself for not finding out this information before. Can my noble friend the Minister say, from the work already done by directors of social services—many of whom have already used this method of direct payment, though perhaps not legally—whether or not the provision applies to people with learning difficulties as well as to those with physical disabilities? Also, can she say whether or not the experiment was a success?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The Government's proposal to restrict the categories of people available for direct grants, as distinct from enlarging them, is rather puzzling. If the Government are arguing that this is one way of saving money, the provision is understandable, if not totally defensible. But the contrary appears to be the case.
The operation of the Independent Living Fund shows that the cost-effectiveness of people receiving the grants and handling their own money is greater than the provision of services by local authorities. Therefore, first, it will be a money-saving exercise, at least on balance.
Secondly, one of the purposes of giving grants of this sort, apart from providing money with which people can relieve their disability or sustain the way they handle it, is to improve their ability—especially those with mental disabilities—to exercise responsibility; to learn how to live and how to cope; to learn how to do things for themselves. If we can help them in that way and perhaps therapeutically improve their position, even marginally, that is surely a major advantage rather than compelling them to accept services provided by an external authority at the behest of that authority.

371
I hope that the Government will reflect on those two positive points: first, the cost-effectiveness of the amendment; and, secondly, the possible therapeutic bonuses of providing the grants directly.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I too must apologise for missing the first few words of the debate; I had hoped to be here earlier. I considered carefully the issue as to whether or not the Government are justified in seeking to phase in the new system and, if so, how it should he done.
Let me say straightaway that I totally support the concept of direct payments wherever that is possible. I derive that opinion from a case many years ago where I was advising the legal association for the disabled. It presented me with the case of a family in West London where the husband had become seriously disabled. The family wrote to the local authority and asked to have a stairlift installed.
The local council sent along its assessment officer who said, "What you really want is a grant for a bedroom, a grant for a bathroom, handholds and ramps" and many other things. The work duly went ahead. Finally, the senior person came along and inspected the house. He said, "This is all extremely satisfactory and the only thing you need now is a stairlift to enable your husband to get up to the top floor". The wife responded, "That is all we asked for in the first place!".
I have no doubt that had the money been directly available to that family, that is what they would have had and the other expenditure would not have been necessary. It is crucial that we realise—as has been said in this Chamber and elsewhere for many years—that by far the best judge of what a family with a member suffering from a handicap needs, is that disabled person or his family. Of course they should be given advice and be made aware of what is available; but the choice should be theirs. Direct payments are a good way of—to repeat the word used several times at Second Reading—"empowering" people. I read the speech of my noble friend both in introducing and in winding-up the debate and some of her comments regarding the actions of individuals who had had the advantage of receiving direct payments were: extremely encouraging and heart-warming.
Of course, we would all love this system to spring fully armed out of the breast of Athena and for it to be available to everybody straight away. I may have it wrong—my noble and learned friend Lord Simon is seeking to put me right and will have an opportunity to do so—but the fact is that anyone with experience of the way these systems are introduced knows that that is not realistic. This is an example of where a system needs to be phased in.
The case made for extending the direct payments system to ranges of people who will not be immediately embraced by the scheme—for example, the elderly, people with learning disabilities, families with children and so forth—is strong. I hope that my noble friend can tell the Committee when she replies that the Government are not excluding any of those groups; but that they are hoping to give a greater priority to the physically disabled who are of adult age though have
372
not yet reached pensionable age. I have no doubt that that is the group from which the greatest pressure for the provision has come. That is the group where the greatest immediate value will be secured.
It is no bad thing to ask local authorities to concentrate their efforts in the first instance on making the direct payments scheme available to that category and, progressively, to others as they gain experience. One must remember that a large number of local authorities have not attempted direct payment before, though some, to their great credit have (it has been said illegally and I do not comment on that); most will he feeling their way and learning how to do it; most will need to become used to the idea of not implementing services themselves but giving people the cash to do it.
I should have thought that it was entirely reasonable to take the power to phase this in. After all, how often have we heard from noble Lords on both sides of the House that pilot schemes and so on would be better than jumping straight away into major reforms? This is not a pilot scheme. This is introducing a scheme by stages. In justifying that I hope that my noble friend will nevertheless be able to reassure the Committee that no group will be excluded—certainly not For all time—hut that all groups will be considered in due course and that the advantages of the scheme will be extended to them. If my noble friend is able to tell the Committee that, I think we would he prepared to say that phasing in may be right as a necessary stage in the introduction of something which everyone wants to see.
Baroness Hamwee: In partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as he himself recognised, these schemes are perhaps illegally in operation in a number of local authorities. I wonder whether in replying to this group of amendments, which as my noble friend said we on these Benches support, the Minister could assist the Committee with regard to the timetable relating to the consultation document and the regulations. It is a matter for those affected by these proposals—both the payees and the payers—who are not being asked to respond to the consultative document. We should listen to them with regard to the phasing in of pilot schemes and so on.
Many Members of the Committee will have heard from organisations representing affected groups. They have indicated, certainly so far as my mail is concerned, that they would be against any kind of discrimination, if I may use that word perhaps rather more neutrally than it is normally used, or differentiation between the groups. After all, there is a consultative document. Perhaps it is a little paternalistic for the Committee to seek to pre-empt the answers which will be given to the consultation.
At Second Reading I expressed concern about the timing. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has told the Committee how very recently the consultation document has been received. If it has gone out by fax I daresay that some people do not have very clear copies and cannot yet read it. It would be helpful to know how long the consultation period is to be and when the regulations are likely to he laid. It was with that in mind that I put down an amendment, which comes rather later in the

373
Bill, seeking a positive resolution in respect of the first set of regulations in order that there might be parliamentary involvement. I can see that we shall have this discussion on almost every line of the Bill as so much of it inevitably will be in regulations.
Baroness Seccombe: My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has expressed much more eloquently than I can exactly my feelings. This is an exciting and positive measure which is welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House. However, if it is available for all, it may he so popular that social workers will be swallowed up in the administration of such a scheme. Rather than having pilot schemes in different parts of the country, it seems to me that the measures suggested in the Bill are the right way to proceed. I hope that we shall agree to them.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am a little surprised by the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for not discussing Scotland today, especially when I have just flown through the same fog as he did to get here.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I think that he has slightly misunderstood me. I came in right at the beginning of the day in order to draw attention to Scotland. The first amendments on the Marshalled List right up to his two amendments deal with the part of the Bill on England and Wales. Before we started discussing all the amendments I thought it was important that it should be made clear that they apply to England and Wales only but that I do not find fault with that on the basis that if it takes a great deal of time and if in principle amendments are accepted, the Scottish equivalents could he considered at a later stage. I think the noble Earl will agree with me that it is complicated to try to make amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 which themselves amend an existing Scottish Act. That would make the work of the Committee rather more complicated than it need be.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the Committee that Scotland is perhaps in advance on this. I am certainly not decrying that.
I have no difficulty with the concept of direct payments. However, I wish to support Amendment No. 44, which definitely relates to Scotland. It would be regarded as unhelpful for whole classes of people in Scotland to be disentitled en bloc. Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act requires the local authority to assess and assist all persons in need. Such payments are made under that section only if they are deemed appropriate after assessment. Discretion is already built into the system. Therefore I would argue that there is no need for further definition by class or grouping, especially if it is to be done by regulation by the Secretary of State for Scotland after the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, because I have my own
374
amendments later to speak to, but I would like to amplify some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and invite the Committee to consider the case of the severely mentally handicapped, who are in effect incapable of taking their own decisions in this matter. I hope that what has been said and broadly supported by noble Lords this afternoon will take into account the carer in charge of such a person. I would hope that that carer would as often as possible he a close family member of that severely mentally handicapped person who perhaps has a mental age of four or even less.
Lord Hayhoe: During the course of the persuasive speeches that have been made in favour of this series of amendments reference has often been made to discretion. Perhaps we ought to think carefully whether it is right to take away from the Government the discretion which is implicit in Clause 1(1)(b). I believe that that discretion would be exercised along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and that this would be a phased process. At this stage, when we arc taking a major, important and broadly welcomed step forward into direct payments, it will require very powerful arguments indeed to deny the Government who are introducing this legislation the element of discretion which would be denied to them if these amendments were carried. Therefore, though I find persuasive the speeches which have been made in their support, they are not persuasive enough for me to be willing to deny to the Government the degree of discretion which I believe is their right in this matter.
Lord Swinfen: When my noble friend replies, can she tell the Committee whether Clause 1(1)(b) is in line with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When the Minister comes to reply, will she address two points which have arisen in the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Hayhoe and Lord Jenkin of Roding? Will she confirm that under these proposals the local authorities themselves will have the right to introduce this scheme on a phased basis? According to the experience a local authority brings to direct payments, it may want a quite limited scheme to start with or it may, through third parties or whatever, already be operating a comprehensive scheme. For example, if these regulations were to be introduced they would have to limit a scheme that is already in place and running.
If local authorities have the discretion to phase in the scheme as fits their local circumstances, why should the Secretary of State do it? He cannot know the speed at which local authorities are operating, the experience they have and local demand. We do not need discretion at central government level if it is properly and professionally exercised at local level, otherwise one subverts the purpose of the Bill.
My next question arises as a result of the consultative document which has been published within the past two days or so. I believe that the responses have to he in by middle or late February. In paragraph 12 of the

375
document the Government say that they are limiting the groups of people who will be eligible in order to give local authorities the best opportunity to implement direct payments effectively: in other words, this provision is meant to be helpful to local authorities. At the end of paragraph 16 an array of possibilities is offered as to which groups will be eligible and the Government are asking for responses, saying that they prefer the more limited option but will receive recommendations for a wider option. Is it an open choice? In other words, if the local authorities, which the Minister is so anxious to help, say, "Minister, we do not find your proposals helpful. We would prefer that all groups, on paper, be eligible and that local authorities should determine how they phase in the scheme", will the Minister listen and accept that?
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other Members of the Committee for their opening remarks. I usually refrain from giving health advice, but I do not recommend renal colic or kidney stones. The pain equals that of labour pains but there is no baby to show for it at the end.
I also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth): her becoming a Dame gave many of us enormous pleasure.
In my opening remarks I would like to thank many Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for their timely amendments. That was greatly appreciated by myself and my officials. All these amendments seek to remove or amend the regulation-making power in Clause 1(1). The reason for this regulation-making power is so that we can restrict the size of the potential client group for this new and largely untested development, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
With no restrictions, we feel that the potential client group would include all people who would otherwise receive community care services, and that is a very large group. We think that it is sensible to limit eligibility in the first instance so that we can see how this policy works in practice. What we propose is to make regulations so that it is clear who local authorities should focus their attention on in the first instance. I believe that local authorities will welcome that clarity.
Perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about restriction being discrimination. That is not our intention at all, and neither do we want to prejudge that certain groups, depending on age or whatever, would not be able to manage. The provision is about selecting a group of an appropriate size who are keen to take on this new freedom. This is a new approach to delivery of care and all parties involved need time to adjust to it. It makes a great deal more sense to specify in regulations who is in that group rather than who is not, as would he the effect of the second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
We are consulting on how the client group should be defined in regulations. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that the consultation paper did not arrive earlier.
376
But it explains our reasons for preferring that only physically disabled people under the age of 65 should be eligible, and invites comments. The paper also makes clear that this would not exclude people who have a physical disability as well as some other form of impairment such as learning difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked whether people who are already receiving direct payments would be eligible after their 65th birthday. The answer is yes, and we would want them to continue.
The noble Baroness also asked about the lower age limit. It is 18 years because direct payments replace community care services, and those services are for adults. Under the age of 18 the Children Act applies. We shall consider very carefully the responses we receive to all our consultations, alongside your Lordships comments, before deciding on the definition of eligibility to be used.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), seek to avoid any restriction on the basis of age or nature of disability. I am sympathetic to their reasons for tabling these amendments, but I do not see that there is any fairer way of restricting the size of the client group. We feel that that is important, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said. When we are starting a new scheme like this, it is important that we phase it in. We want this new concept to be a real success. We know that some local authorities are finding it difficult at the moment even to implement the community care Act. It is difficult for them to see a national picture. This Government, through their various task forces and the work of the department officials, can get a total picture of what is happening in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about people with learning disabilities who are currently supported from the ILF. Our reason for proposing to exclude people with learning difficulties in the first instance is not based on the belief that no one with such disabilities would be able to manage the provision. We are simply trying to restrict the size of the client group, as I have already said, while local authorities gain experience of administering the direct payments. There are lessons that they will need to learn, although they will not be specific to the people who receive them.
There were also questions about the current schemes. As we know, some local authorities are currently operating independent living schemes. It is for them to ensure that these schemes are operating within existing legislation. I know that some of those schemes have some clients with learning disabilities. I am sure that they will find that experience useful. But many local authorities do not have that experience and direct payments have never before been a part of the mainstream provision. That is why we feel that in the first instance we need to tread very carefully.
Baroness Seear: Is not that exactly the reason why the scheme should be left to the local authorities? The

377
noble Baroness has just said that some have gone ahead with it and others are far behind. Surely that means that a uniform scheme is not appropriate.
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not know how to put it more strongly. It is important that we focus on a small group to start with. There are other amendments which will look at probity in monitoring the schemes and all the rest of it. Clearly, to some extent the department is also involved. At this early stage it would be very unfortunate to go at such a pace as to include large numbers of people when we could not cope with that. We want the scheme to be a success, and this is a start. We shall certainly be reviewing the situation in terms of client groups, but first we have to look at the response we have to the consultation document.
Lord Carter: We have heard a lot about small, large and phasing. If the Government decide to go ahead with the group which is listed under paragraph 15(a) of the consultation document, referring to adults under the age of 65 who are physically disabled, have they any idea of the numbers involved? I do not believe that we have heard any numbers mentioned. Has any estimate been made of the number of people who are likely to take up the scheme in the first stage?
Baroness Cumberlege: We do not have specific numbers. I have been asking that question. This Bill reflects what is happening under the community care Act. We know under that legislation that 80 per cent. of the people who are assessed as needing services are over the age of retirement. Therefore, we know that the number will be relatively small: that is if we start with the physically disabled who are under the age of 65. But we just do not have the precise information and I have been seeking it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Then how is it a problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may continue and, with some trepidation, cross Hadrian's Wall and talk about the system in Scotland. As I understand the position there, direct payments can only be made in cases of emergency. Some authorities have set up voluntary bodies through which payments are made to individuals, as they have in this country. The Bill rationalises that arrangement and provides a national framework, which we all seek.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked who will initiate the direct payments, the client or the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, came in on that. I think that both are right in that it has to be a joint agreement. First, the person concerned has to feel that he or she can manage the scheme and needs to approach the local authority which then has to undertake the community care assessment. It has to be an agreement between both parties.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether disabled people are included in some of the schemes that are running at the moment. I understand that they are, but we do not have any definitive answers about how that is
378
working. However, the Hampshire scheme, which is a pilot scheme, is progressing extremely cautiously—and that county has had direct payments for 14 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the content of the regulations. We are anxious that the regulations should he laid as soon as possible, but that will depend on the parliamentary timetable. With regard to the document that we have put out, the consultation period will last for six weeks ending on 23rd February. We very much look forward to receiving people's comments.
I have tried to explain why we think that it is sensible to limit the size of the client group. By doing so in regulations, we shall be able to make adjustments without the need to amend primary legislation. I assure my noble friends Lord Jenkin, Lord Hayhoe and Lady Seccombe that we shall keep the position under review once direct payments are available and consider expanding the client group if that seems sensible in the light of experience
I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that these are probing amendments and I hope that, with those assurances, your Lordships will not press them.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has been careful to answer as many questions as possible. but perhaps I may press her again on just one point. Clearly, we all want the Bill to succeed, but the biggest single issue that divides opinion in the Committee is whether certain groups should be blanket-excluded in advance by the Government as opposed to local authorities being able to determine how to phase in the scheme according to their own experiences and assessments of local need. That is a central question in the consultative document—we have quoted it to the Minister—in which the Minister asks for responses on whether her preferred option, which is to limit the scheme to physically disabled adults under 65, should command consent or whether wider groups should be included. If there is overwhelming support from the local authorities, which the Minister is so anxious to help and assist, as well as from other organisations, for the idea that the client group should be more comprehensive than the Government are proposing, will the Minister accept that?
Baroness Cumberlege: I sense that there is a feeling in the country that many people want to take this further. I understand that, but the Government have to exercise their judgment and at the moment we wish to consult on a sharper focus and on a limited number of people who would be eligible for the scheme. We think that that is right. The answer to the question will come through the consultation exercise when we shall discover the views not only of the local authorities concerned, but of the general public also.
I would answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Swinfen about Clause 1(1)(b) if I could, but I am afraid that I shall have to write to him about it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, and following the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. The last thing that we want to do is to continue a

379
situation which has worried us all, including the Minister, so much for the past five years. I refer to the fact that local authorities will be forced either to operate their schemes illegally, through a third party, or will have to stop operating them. Does the Minister agree that if there is a blanket exclusion of some categories of people, although in some local authorities some of those individuals have already been receiving direct payments) we shall be prolonging something that we all want to avoid?
Baroness Cumberlege: I understand that some schemes that are running are not illegal and I am sure that if they meet the requirements of the district auditor they will continue to run. I am sure that the Hampshire scheme is an example. At this point we want to restrict the numbers. We know of the difficulties that some local authorities are having in implementing the National Health Service and Community Care Act. This is another very new system for some local authorities which is why we want to consult on it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In accordance with what my noble friend is saying, does she not agree that Clause 1(4) is perhaps too restrictive? What is the point of having that subsection if the object of the exercise is to start small and gradually include more categories and get larger? I do not see that subsection (4) of Clause 1 helps in that regard. The discretion would still be left with the Secretary of State to add any category that seems appropriate as time goes on without having to look for primary time to alter the face of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: I think that the point was well made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. This is a new scheme. We have to see how it works. If it works well, we are prepared to reconsider the categories to see whether they can be widened with good effect. However, I must advise the Committee that we need to be careful to start with. As my noble friend said, whenever we introduce new measures many people ask why we did not have a pilot scheme. We are not having a pilot scheme in terms of geography, but we are suggesting that we should start with a sharp focus and limit it to the group of people who have pressed most strongly for this measure. We shall then assess what happens.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for offering to write to me about my question. I think that it is an important question because if it turns out that Clause 1(1)(b) is not consistent with the Disability Discrimination Act, considerable rethinking will have to be done—and the sooner it is done, the better. Can my noble friend confirm that she will respond to my question before the next stage of the Bill?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, I can give that assurance.
Lord Rix: Before closing on this amendment, can the Minister confirm that Report stage will not take place
380
until after the consultative document has been replied to—that is, not before 23rd February? It seems wrong for the Report stage to take place before that date.
Baroness Cumberlege: That is a question for the business managers. I certainly would not dream of giving such an undertaking.
Lord Rix: In that case, it will clearly be difficult for us to press amendments, but I suppose that we shall have to think about that at Report stage, if it happens before 23rd February. Although we recognise the need to phase in direct payments, as I said in my opening remarks, it is vital that people with learning disabilities are seen as having totally different problems from those with physical disabilities. Unless local authorities are able to experience what is required by people with learning disabilities, that is another learning stage that will take place months—maybe years—ahead and that is totally unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 14 of the consultation paper states:
"In particular, the Government will consider carefully, in the light of responses to the consultation exercise, whether all adults under the age of 65 with learning disabilities who are able and willing to manage direct payments (with help if necessary)"—
I think that that responds partially to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—
"should be eligible".
I can only say that we at MENCAP have, through what I have said, given that response this afternoon to Amendment No. 38. I know that I am supported in that by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the president of MENCAP, who is sitting on my right hand which is, I believe, the wrong way round. It is important that the question of making direct payments to people with learning disabilities (with help where necessary) should be addressed in the early stages of the consultation about the way in which the payments are to be made.
If I could have an assurance in that respect I should not press my amendment. In view of the doubts which seem to exist, I have no alternative but to seek a Division—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, withdraw it.
Lord Rix: I beg the Committee's pardon. In view of the advice that I have received from the Opposition Front Bench, I shall return to my natural instinct and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 4:s
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("whole") to first ("or) in line 14.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 5. Before doing so, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness the Minister for their kind words and congratulations on my becoming a Dame. The first joy is to see how pleased

381
everyone else is about it. It is a great honour for me and I believe that it is also a tribute to the work done by your Lordships' House and by the Cross-Benches.
The amendments are a pair and their purpose is to ensure that direct payment covers the whole cost of a person's needs. Unless the words,
"or such part as they think fit",
are deleted, a local authority could, in theory, pay a person far less than it might have to pay if it provided the service itself. Amendment No. 5, which would add the words "all or any part", would ensure that the whole cost of a person's needs was covered, whether by direct payment or by a mixture of direct payment and service provision.
I accept utterly that it is for a local authority to decide whether to provide a direct payment, but the present wording would appear to allow a local authority unfairly to influence a decision that a disabled person makes. Depending on its proclivities, a local authority could push a disabled person towards accepting a service rather than a direct payment or vice versa. For example, leaving aside any contribution from the disabled person, if the local authority assessed him as needing £X-worth of service, it could encourage the disabled person to choose the service by offering him half of the cost of £X in direct payment or to choose the direct payment by offering twice £X as a direct payment. That is to say, depending on the predilection, the local authority can favour its own in-house services or outside commercial services. I would not have thought that such behaviour, if it were to be allowed, would be in the best interests of disabled people. I feel sure that the Government will agree with that. Indeed, on Second Reading the Minister said:
"The local authority will not be able to set direct payments at a level which is insufficient to meet her needs".—[Official Report, 7/12/95; col. 1051.]
The Minister may say that this amendment will preclude a local authority from imposing a means test. I stress that that is not the intention of the amendment. I hope that if the Government's legal advice is that the amendment will preclude a means test, we can find a more suitable wording that will achieve the same aim. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Both the amendments are welcome and will help the Bill. They will guarantee that a disabled person can purchase the service about which we are talking. Such a provision should be included because it will guarantee that real choice is available to disabled people.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: We are pleased to support the amendment. Perhaps I may refer to the contretemps that took place at the end of the debate on Amendment No. 1. It is the first time that I remember the Opposition Front Bench trying to rescue the Government from embarrassment by having an amendment withdrawn.
There is an important point to he made because paragraph 7 of the consultation document states:
382
"The Bill does not require local authorities to offer direct payments. Instead they will be able to decide whether to offer direct payments, or whether it would be more appropriate to continue to arrange services for the person concerned."
It then states in paragraph 8 that the person concerned must consent. The object of the amendment is to make sure that local authorities will not play box-and-cox and decide that if they can save money one way or another that will be the criteria rather than the needs of the person concerned.
Paragraph 8 of the consultation document states:
"If they are offered direct payments and do not want to take on the responsibility of managing their own care at that time. that should not exclude the possibility of their being offered direct payments at a later date."
What criteria will the local authorities use to decide whether to offer the payments later? Will there he any pressure on cost if it is decided that it would be cheaper to offer direct services? If the person concerned does not want those services, can the authority bring some pressure to bear on him to accept them?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to ask the Minister to clarify one matter for me because my noble friend Lady Darcy is not clear about it either. Who is eligible for help and who is not?
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may pick up that point first. We are suggesting that those eligible for help should be limited to those between the ages of 18 and 65 who are physically disabled. That is the position at the moment and that is what we are consulting on.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Will there he a restriction on how they receive help? If they can afford their own help, will they receive help from the local authority? I know some very severely disabled people who receive no help at all.
Baroness Cumberlege: It all starts with the assessment and the wish of the disabled person to have direct payments instead of services. It is up to the local authority then to assess the needs of that person. The two have to work together. We can easily envisage a situation in which a disabled person will be receiving direct payments and services from the local authority and will also have his own income. In that case, perhaps he may wish to use that income in order to support himself. It can be a mixture of various means of care.
We understand the concern which prompted the tabling of this pair of amendments. It is an issue of great importance to the people who may wish to receive direct payments. The reasons that we intend to allow authorities to pay part or all of the cost of the services as they see fit are, first, to enable them to require the individual to make a financial contribution to the cost of his care—I understand what the noble Baroness said about that not being the purpose of her amendment—and, secondly, so that local authorities are free to set the amount at the level which they consider will enable the disabled person to purchase the appropriate services. It prevents local authorities from being forced to pay more simply because the disabled person wishes to have what is seen as a luxury service when there is a more basic

383
but certainly adequate service which would do perfectly well. Of course, there is a duty on local authorities to ensure that public money is well used.
As we intend to make clear in the guidance, the Bill allows for local authorities to pay the whole or part of the cost of a service. That does not mean that the authority can arbitrarily decide to make inadequate payments. Authorities are under a power to act reasonably, and that will apply to the way in which they exercise their functions under the Bill. There are also some specific protections for individuals. Under the provisions of Clause 2, if someone is unable to secure the services for which the direct payments are given, it will be the responsibility of the local authority to arrange those services.
Direct payments can be given only with the person's consent. Therefore, a person need not agree to accept a direct payment if he believes that the amount offered will not enable him to meet his needs. Furthermore, those who are receiving direct payments, and those who turned them down because they believed that the sum offered was too small, will have the right to use the local authority complaints procedure to challenge the level of funding which the authority has offered.
We know that there is a real concern here—we understand and share it—that those receiving direct payments should not be treated more or less favourably with regard to the financial contribution that they are expected to make. The Bill gives local authorities discretion as to whether or not to take into account someone's financial circumstances. It does not require them to do so. It also gives local authorities discretion as to how that is to be done. That is intended to mirror the situation which exists currently in relation to non-residential care, where local authorities may decide whether or not, or indeed how much, to charge.
The Government aim to rule out perverse financial incentives so that a disabled person has a genuine choice. It is our intention to issue Section 7 guidance on this issue. The guidance will stress that local authorities must treat people fairly and should treat both service users and direct payment recipients in an equivalent manner. Therefore, when considering the financial contribution which a direct payment recipient should make towards the cost of his care, the authority should treat him in the same way as he would have been treated under the charging policy had the individual been receiving equivalent services. That maintains the local authority's discretion over its charging policy.
I believe that I was asked about the criteria used when direct payments may be offered in future, at a later date. It will be for local authorities to decide the criteria other than those which we are suggesting in our consultation paper. As we all know, many of us change our minds from time to time. Therefore, it is important that the issue is kept open so that people can decide in future whether they wish no longer to receive the services supplied but instead to have direct payments.
The Government believe that the Bill contains adequate protection for individuals and that issuing guidance as I have described is the most appropriate
384
way to achieve our aim of ensuring fair and equivalent treatment. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Carter, for their support. I believe that they expressed the matter more clearly than I did. I thank the Minister for her careful reply. I appreciate that local authorities can set levels which they consider appropriate and avoid a luxury service, as the Minister described it; and that the recipient need not agree if he does not believe that what is offered is sufficient. I am happy with what the Minister said. She said that there will be a complaints procedure and that there will be a right of appeal if an individual believes that the local authority is not offering enough.
In the light of what the Minister said—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is nodding his head—I thank her for her assurance and I beg leave withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that each local authority shall provide such advice and assistance to the person as may be necessary to ensure that the person has access to support services to manage a cash payment.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 45. These two amendments deal with the important need for advice and support services for the recipients of direct payments. I am sure that we all agree that there is a need for sound support and training systems to provide recipients of direct payments with the means by which they may maximise the benefit that they receive from the payments; to protect the employment rights of paid carers; and to enhance the administration of the scheme.
I must admit that I saw the consultation paper only a few minutes before I came into the Chamber and therefore, I did not have an opportenity to read it properly. But, looking at paragraph 35, which I believe is the only paragraph that deals with support services, the fair point is made about the need for support to recipients of direct payments as regards what the recipients will have to do. It mentions that local authorities must make clear the various problems which may arise when direct payments are offered.
On reading that paragraph, it is significant that there is no mention at all of government involvement. The matter seems to be left entirely to local authorities. I admit that the wording of the amendments does not exactly produce the answer that we are looking for and therefore, these are probing amendments. But we believe that guidance needs to be set down by the Secretary of State to establish a national framework of advice.
In response to the last group of amendments, the Minister said that there would be guidance for recipients and local authorities as regards the criteria and so on.

385
I should be interested to know whether the Minister feels that that guidance should include the whole business of the recipient of the direct payments entering into an employer/employee relationship. Responsibility for pay-as-you-earn, national insurance and redundancy payments are all matters which employers are used to. But that will be a whole new arena for many of the people receiving the payments. Also, the financial situation is often such that it may be that local authorities must reduce the width of advice that they can provide from their own resources.
Another important point is that we are all anxious to give discretion to the local authorities. But all of us who believe in local democracy must accept that, if there is not some overall guidance, we shall end up with a patchwork quilt of provision with differing levels of provision and different criteria in different areas. Therefore, there should be support, advice and guidelines for the recipients and local authorities on which they can fall back.
The role which local authorities are to play in providing employment advice should be clarified. Will local authorities become involved in employee/employer disputes? Will the contracts made by the direct payment recipients be vetted? Will the users be permitted to make assistants redundant and, if so, how will that be paid for? We are entering something of a minefield. The Government cannot just sit back and leave it all to the local authorities.
As I said, the point of the amendments is to press the Government to say whether they believe that the guidelines which they have said will be issued, which we welcome, will deal with the issues to which I have referred. We feel that it would be helpful if those issues were addressed and that they may well be needed to prevent local authorities being open to legal challenge.
I have referred to the technicalities involved in the new employer/employee relationships. This will be a whole new field for many of the people who will be in receipt of these payments and they will be in need of sound help and advice. Do the Government feel that that should be left entirely to local authorities or do they believe, as we do, that they have some responsibility for providing national advice and guidelines?
A fear has been expressed by some organisations that the authorities, which are comparatively new to this, do not have experience of providing advice and will find themselves inundated with complaints made by, for example, carers. Therefore, we feel that there should be overall guidance on how those matters are to be handled. If such guidance were provided, the expected teething problems would be minimised.
There are examples around the country of local support agencies and advice support networks which are working extremely well. Could the work that those agencies are doing be brought together by the Government in the guidelines issued so that there is a national framework to which recipients, organisations and local authorities can refer?
I am sure that the Minister has the drift of the argument. If we give elderly and disabled people the opportunity to be in charge of their own care arrangements, that gives them the power of control which we all wish to see. But with that power comes responsibility and we all feel that support from the Government and the local authorities is needed to assist with that responsibility. Therefore, that is the point of these two probing amendments. We wish to know whether the Government feel that they have a responsibility to give guidance and support and to what extent those matters will be left to the local authorities. The consultation document seems to imply that the Government do not see a role for themselves at all in that regard; and I am sure that that is wrong. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to express my support for the amendment for one very simple reason: if we do not have sufficient support systems available for those individuals who have been given such an empowerment, they may well not benefit from it at all or, indeed, benefit from it very badly.
As the noble Lord just said, it is a very complicated field and a series of new problems are being presented to individuals. Unless we have some sort of national guidelines, local authorities will not know what they are supposed to be giving and what type of help should he provided. Another important point to consider is that if what we have in the Bill as currently drafted—that is, certain categories that will he taken on board—is merely a starting point, having a service which would provide guidelines and help would enable the Government to bring in other groups at a later stage.
It would indeed help to have a national framework. It would help to address all the problems which may arise. In addition, different types of techniques for giving support, and so on, will be required by any agency which deals with such a wide group; for example, support for educational services may well have to be involved when dealing with the divergence of literacy skills. Unless coherent national guidelines are set down, many problems may arise in relation to the administration and any future direction of the scheme. However, so long as a national framework is put in place at the beginning, the scheme will have the opportunity to grow and become better directed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I find myself becoming somewhat confused on the issue. We debated briefly, but thoroughly, at the beginning whether or not it was appropriate for the Government to establish some priorities in the area, only to he told by Members of the Committee—principally those on the opposite side—that it was a matter to he left entirely to local authorities as they were the ones who knew about it and, therefore, they should have the choice. In other words, it would he quite wrong to introduce a regulation-making power to allow the Government to limit the recipients.
However, as regards the current amendment, we arc told that unless the Government provide national guidance on the advice services to he offered we shall

387
end up with a "patchwork quilt" of such services. If I may say so, I find that to be a very confusing dichotomy in the thinking of the Front Bench opposite. With the greatest deference, because he knows much more about the subject than I do, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I found some of his remarks faintly patronising. We shall have many extremely active and determined people who want the power to make their own decisions and run their own lives. They are looking forward with great anticipation to the opportunity of having their own payments. I find it faintly demeaning to say that they will not know how to employ people and will have to have advice on that; or that they will not know anything about how to run PAYE or whether they should be paying VAT, or whatever it is now, on the payments. Indeed, I should give my noble friend notice that I shall return to that question at a later stage.
It seems to me that there are ample avenues through which people can obtain advice on such questions. I should have thought that it is perfectly reasonable to leave it to the local authorities which will operate the scheme to decide which of the sort of services and the kind of advice that they will be able to give. As I said, one has come across many organisations which help people who suffer from disabilities of one sort or another. Indeed, the fact that they are there to be consulted and give advice is sometimes one of the most important and valuable services that they provide. Moreover, there is no shortage of such assistance. I should have thought that it was really a work of supererogation for the Bill to lay down a requirement that the Government shall impose upon local authorities central guidelines as to how such services should be provided. It seems to me that that would make an absolute mountain out of a molehill, which is quite unnecessary. With that encouragement, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to resist the amendments.
Lord Carter: I should like to make one point before the Minister responds. However, I shall deal with the point at length in my response to the Minister. I was very careful throughout my speech to use the word "guidance" and not "regulation". That was quite deliberate. I notice that the noble Lord slipped from guidance to regulation and then went back to guidance. There is a distinction between the two. As I said, I was careful to refer only to guidance. I also said that the amendments were not in fact properly worded to achieve the desired effect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to respond to the noble Lord. I must point out that the first words in the amendment are "Regulations shall provide". Indeed, the noble Lord is asking the Government to make regulations as regards the "advice and assistance" that may be given to such people. I feel that that is quite unnecessary.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may ask a few questions. I am now speaking as the President of the Spinal Injuries Association. For some years we have run an emergency care scheme. Individuals and local authorities have used the scheme when the carer has an emergency breakdown and the severely disabled person—and I am talking
388
about people who are paralysed from the neck down—is left without a helper. It is a short-term scheme of two weeks, otherwise provision of carers would he blocked.
However, such carers are trained by the Spinal Injuries Association. I should like to ask the Minister about the training of such people. As I said, we are talking about severely disabled people. Many severely disabled people can train their own carers, but they may need help in doing so. For example, they might need a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist to come in and help with the lifting procedures. Indeed, there are now EC regulations on lifting. Can the Minister say whether insurance will be taken into account in the direct payments to cover the extra expense?
Lord Swinfen: I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has rather misread the amendment. It says:
"Regulations shall provide that each local authority shall provide such advice".
It is the provision of that advice which is important. It does not refer to regulations as to what advice should be given. We all need advice from time to time, no matter what we do and what is our position in life. I know that a number of disabled people who wish to be independent and manage their own affairs would very much welcome advice on how to deal with employing people and on managing the grants that they receive.
In fact, in one of the briefings that I have received from People First (an organisation of people with learning difficulties for people with learning disabilities) one of the things that is specifically requested is that such people should be able to manage their own purchase of help and care but that they should also be given advice on how to do it, on how to spend the money wisely and on how to manage employees. At present, many of those people are able to live independently with the benefit of such advice. The amendments propose an extension of that advice. On the other side, local authorities are trustees of public money. I believe that the proposed extension would be compatible with their duty to ensure that that public money is properly used and not wasted. I am in favour of the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to express my support for the amendment and speak also to Amendment No. 45 which is tabled in my name. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that he may prefer the wording of the latter amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the local authority arranges for appropriate support to be given to people receiving the payments to enable them to arrange their own care. There is no doubting the fact that giving people with disabilities and elderly people the opportunity to be in charge of their own care provision will give them greater power and control over their lives.
However, the downside is that with power comes responsibility and, as other speakers have said, support, advice and information may he needed to assist people to cope with their new responsibilities. For example, individuals may need to know who can provide the services that they need, how they can access them and

389
what is the going rate for them. If a person employs his own personal assistant, he may well need information about the duties of an employer and guidance about national insurance, taxation, health and safety requirements and employer's liability insurance. Again, unfortunately, some people will become unhappy with the care that they are receiving and will need advice about their rights under contract or about how to work the complaints procedure.
Such support does not have to come from the local authority. Indeed, there are centres for independent living in both Lothian and Strathclyde regions run by people with disability for themselves. Those centres have gained experience in supporting people in making their own care arrangements and are a model which other authorities can follow.
The amendment would have the effect of ensuring that the Bill would enable people to take advantage of the new provisions. By receiving support where necessary, they would avoid the pitfalls of employment administration.
Baroness Cumberlege: When a disabled person agrees to receive direct payments in lieu of community care services, that person will take on responsibility for the management of all the arrangements associated with the money he or she receives. Clearly, many people may need advice and assistance to cope with those new responsibilities. Local authorities are required to act reasonably, and I am sure that they will wish to help those people to ensure that they are able to manage their direct payments responsibly and properly. We intend to issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they are aware of the importance of support. However, we feel that to go beyond that and give local authorities a legal duty to provide advice and assistance would be onerous and probably inappropriate.
I am aware that many people look to the Bill as a way of making local authorities less intrusive than they have been in the past. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that there are other methods of obtaining advice. We must not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people are independent and run their own lives. I am sure that many will seek advice from sources other than the local authority. We believe that it would undermine local authorities' discretion in their dealings with individuals if such a duty was placed on them. After all, as I said, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people have their independence.
I should like to address specifically the role of an employer. The ultimate responsibility for the management of all arrangements associated with the individual's cash payments will rest with the individual. That includes the individual's duties as an employer. Direct payment recipients will have the same legal obligations as all employers. We intend to issue guidance to local authorities telling them that they ought to make prospective direct payment recipients aware that they will have legal responsibilities if they choose to employ personal care assistants. However, ultimately
390
it is up to the people receiving direct payments to be aware of their legal responsibilities and to comply with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the training of carers and those involved as personal assistants. I looked at a scheme in some detail. The recipients of direct payments I met stressed to me strongly that it was they who needed the training as employers. They had personal wishes as to how the work was to be carried out, and they felt that it was important that they should themselves train the carers on the job.
I was also asked about insurance issues. What is included in the direct payment will depend very much upon the local authority, because, as the Committee is aware, we are not setting a rate that will apply country wide. We want to leave as much discretion as possible to the local authorities. We believe that this is an area in which they may well want to ensure that they have that discretion and that they will exercise it wisely.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say whether that means that people providing the care do not require some basic training? For example, in the case of lifting, the person who needs to be lifted will not be able to instruct the lifter in the best way to do it. In addition, there are basic domestic skills to be taught which have nothing to do with the way in which the person being looked after may want meals served or may want to eat. There are standards of cleanliness to be observed. Surely it is highly desirable that the people who will take on these jobs should be given some basic training in the skills that they will need.
Baroness Cumberlege: Again, I believe that is a matter to be left to the discretion of local authorities, just as they operate home help services, for example, now. Many have different approaches. Many will want to make use of NVQs and the new qualifications which are now on stream. We do not want to be prescriptive and say to local authorities that a particular level of training is essential for carers to do the job, because there are people of differing abilities and experience: some may need a great deal of help in order to carry out their duties and others may not.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this useful debate. When I opened the debate on the amendments I said that the wording of the first amendment was not perfect. I understand entirely the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and if forced I would accept the wording of Amendment No. 45 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
It seems to me that the Government are not being entirely logical. The Minister said in respect of the first group of amendments that the Government have to decide which groups will be eligible, but it appears that they will place no duty on local authorities to give support and advice. They will make them aware of the situation but place no duty upon them. The Government

391
will lay down the groups which are eligible and the criteria for eligibility but then it is entirely up to local authorities whether to offer any support and advice. I paraphrase, but that is the basis of what the Minister said. It is not the Government's responsibility, it is up to the local authority whether to offer support and advice, and if it does not that is it.
Of course the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. All of us who have been employers know the problems of employing the so-called self-employed. If the Inland Revenue decides that a person is not self-employed, then the employer is responsible for tax and National Insurance, which could be a substantial sum.
For all those reasons, I believe that the Government should take much more responsibility and perhaps be prepared to encourage local authorities, through guidance, to sub-contract competent agencies to carry out the work.
I return to the consultation paper, because it seems that the Minister has confirmed the impression that I gained from quickly reading paragraph 35 that the Government see no responsibility for themselves in this area of guidance concerning the problems that could affect the recipient. There are a number of different models of direct payment schemes which are now running which enable disabled people to employ their own workers. Recent research shows that the most successful schemes in terms of user satisfaction and value for money are those for which support and advice are available, often through a personal assistance support scheme, either financed directly by the local authority or using transfer moneys from the Independent Living Fund.
The amendment leaves it to local authorities to decide what support is necessary. The intention is to place an obligation on local authorities to provide the support and advice which we feel is required. We believe that the consultation document does not go far enough in this respect. However, at this point I shall not press the amendment, but I believe that it is a matter that we shall have to discuss with the Minister before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 7:
Page I. line 15, at end insert—
("( ) An authority shall not unreasonably refuse a disabled person access to direct payments from a scheme for the making of such payments to which subsection (I) above refers.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is that anyone seeking a direct payment should he certain that their application for a direct payment will be approved if they fall within the stated requirements of any scheme established by the local authority. In other words, the amendment seeks to tread the line between the rights of the disabled person and the duties, powers arid responsibilities of the local authority. Just as we argued earlier that there should he no categorical refusal by the Secretary of State as to who should be eligible for direct payments, we equally accept that there should he no categorical entitlement
392
for an individual disabled person as of right. Individual clients must be assessed and professional judgment exercised. I do not believe that there is any dispute between us on that point. Local authorities must retain their discretion, but that discretion should not be unqualified.
With the amendment, there is a presumption in favour of the client. If the client comes within the category group, then the local authority's consent to direct payments should not be unreasonably refused. It means that local authorities retain their discretion but that that discretion must be professionally exercised and capable of being reviewed against a test of reasonableness in the appeals procedures, going through to the ombudsman.
It is not a phrase, a new consideration or a new test for local authorities. It is well established in practice. Local authorities have long worked with users and carers to establish criteria of eligibility for services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 within a framework of policy guidance from central government, financial controls of the district auditor, the professional standards and inspection of the social services inspectorate as well as the defence of individual rights within the network of complaints systems leading to the ombudsman. In other words, local authorities expect, act, and want to act within a web of accountability, probity, transparency and controls.
We want the same considerations to apply in this Bill to direct payments. A decision should not he, or appear to be, whimsical. It should not be made. behind closed doors. Social workers and social service departments should be held accountable for their decisions. The amendment provides a simple, clearly understood and well established test. If a client meets the criteria for eligibility, then consent should not be unreasonably withheld. An individual's claim to direct payments cannot be an automatic right. There may be occasional good reason—fear of a grasping relative, or whatever—that direct services may be regarded as more appropriate. Nonetheless we believe that the amendment is the next best thing consistent with local authority professional judgment and discretion that consent should not be unreasonably withheld. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: As the noble Baroness says, the procedure should be accountable. It is essential to ensure that a complaints procedure, to which are applied a set of rules, works properly. It provides a bench-mark by which to ensure that the system works. The amendment is designed to bring the system into line with existing community care procedures. Without the provision, or a similar provision, one will take away the guarantee that the system works better, and is seen to work better. There will be a bench-mark against which to measure success or failure.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment which I believe will he very useful indeed.
Baroness Cumberlege: We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Local authorities are already

393
required to act reasonably in the exercise of their functions and of their discretions. It would, therefore, he illegal for a local authority to act in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion.
In addition, there are already several checks and balances within the legal framework in which local authorities operate which give protection to individuals who are affected by local authority decisions. If someone believes that a local authority has acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary way, he can seek redress through the local authority's complaints procedure, the local government ombudsman, or judicial review, or a combination of those as appropriate. Therefore I urge Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say that the Bill is an enabling Bill. It states that,
"the authority may, if the person consents, pay to him".
What happens if the local authority does not set up a scheme for direct cash payments and a disabled person then wants a direct cash payment? If there is no such scheme, would it not be reasonable to refuse? Therefore surely the amendment is useful.
Baroness Cumberlege: We believe that the amendment has no legal effect because local authorities cannot act unreasonably in the exercise of their functions or of their discretions. Therefore we believe it inappropriate to have an amendment which has no legal effect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am a little puzzled by the Minister's argument. She seems to suggest that the amendment is superfluous because it is already the case that local authorities may not act unreasonably.
Our difficulty is that if the government discretion operates in the way in which the Minister outlined, there will be only certain categories of people entitled to have direct payments. Within those categories, local authorities will exercise their professional discretion, professional judgment, based on social work assessment. I do not believe that there is any dispute between us. If someone falls within that category, however generous and inclusive, as we should like it, or however narrowly drawn the Government make it, we seek to establish that the disabled person can reasonably expect to receive direct payment if he applies. There is no weighting in the Bill as drafted in favour of the disabled person as against the local authority. The local authority could decide to refuse direct payments on grounds which are not made public. We seek to weight the matter in favour of the disabled client.
The words may he better expressed elsewhere by regulation or guidance. I do not dispute that. However, we seek to ensure that there is a level playing field: that like clients are handled in like ways. Without such protection there is a risk that whimsical judgments could he made—judgments which are not fully accountable as they should be. We all know the protection that local authorities need in sensitive areas as regards their judgment. We believe that that could operate
394
occasionally to the disadvantage of disabled people. That is why we seek an amendment which clarifies that the presumption of rights is on the side of the disabled person provided that he meets the criteria of the scheme.
If the provision is redundant, that is splendid. However, I would rather have the words in the Bill which secure those rights than leave it to the test of courts or tribunals.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness suggested that some people might feel that "whimsical judgments" (I think those were her words) had been exercised by local authorities. That is fully covered already through the appeal system. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It is, of course, up to local authorities to use their discretion as to whether or not they want to have a direct payment scheme. However, that is part and parcel of the Bill. It seeks to give local authorities as much discretion as possible once we have agreed the eligibility criteria.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall have to return to the matter at Report stage. We are not satisfied that the Minister accepts the need to protect disabled people in this way. However, with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The relevant complaints procedure applicable to a person receiving community care shall be applicable to a person in receipt of payments under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: We are at a disadvantage because we received the consultation document long after the amendments were tabled. I realise now that the amendment may not be necessary because I believe that our concerns are addressed in the consultation document. However, it might be helpful if I give the brief purport of the amendment in about three sentences. Then perhaps the Minister may be able to reassure the Committee.
There already exist at least three separate complaints mechanisms within local authorities. Those are the community care complaints procedure, a separate complaints procedure under the Children Act 1989, and a general complaints procedure for other areas of social work. We seek from the Minister a reassurance that any complaints under the Bill will be incorporated within the existing community care complaints procedure: that local authorities will not be required to set up, establish and run a fourth complaints procedure. I believe that that is the intention in the consultative document. However, we have been disadvantaged in this as in so many of our other amendments by not having received that document earlier. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I can give the assurances which the noble Baroness seeks. We will give people the same access to the complaints procedures as is given to those who now receive community care services.

395
I could continue at some length about the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. However, I think that that is redundant bearing in mind that I can give the assurance which the noble Baroness seeks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) In the same circumstances as set out in subsection (1) above, an authority may, with the person's consent, pay to a third party the whole, or such part as they think fit, of the cost of securing the provision of any services for which they have decided there is a need").
The noble Baroness said: We now return to an issue which was touched on briefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). If I read the consultative document correctly, the issue is not touched on in it. The amendment's purpose is to safeguard existing schemes where local authorities currently use third party or voluntary organisations to make direct payments.
The background will be well-known to the Minister and the Committee. Because direct payments are illegal, about 80 local authorities have set up their own third party schemes, their ov/n Independent Living Fund type of bodies, into which the local authorities pay a sum of money and the charities in turn dispense it to disabled people in the form of direct payments. Such a device was in the twilight area of legality, but the Minister sensibly displayed a decent reticence on that occasion which I am sure was welcome. There are now about 80 such schemes in England and Wales, some more limited than others; some affect a few people, some more.
The amendment proposes that where a local authority wishes to continue a direct payment scheme through a third party organisation—it may be one of the smaller, less experienced authorities where there is a good experienced third party payment scheme already in existence—that scheme should be legalised and made legitimate, and it should be enabled to continue. In other words, we think there will be different situations in different localities and unless we legalise what is currently of doubtful legality, there could be fiduciary challenges through the district auditor on behalf of council tax payers.
The amendment is modest: we seek to legalise and legitimise the use of third party methods of paying directly where local authorities deem it valuable and appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I warmly support the amendment and look forward to the Minister's reply. In view of what she said to me at the end of the first debate in response to my question, I feel that she might look favourably on it.
Lord Swinfen: I also wish to support the amendment. In doing so, I feel I ought to declare an interest because the charity for which I work already operates a number
396
of schemes for disabled people on behalf of local authorities. The schemes are extremely useful since a number of disabled people, for one reason or another, prefer someone else to handle the cash on their behalf. They do so, first, to ensure that it is properly spent and to use the expertise of the organisation or individuals handling the cash for them; secondly, to make use of the special services that the organisation can often provide. There are also occasions when it will be more appropriate for someone other than the disabled person to handle the cash, possibly for reasons of understanding, as in the case of disabled people with learning difficulties. I warmly welcome the amendment.
Baroness Flather: I wish to snake two brief comments. I have been listening carefully and on the surface it appears to be a good idea. However, I wonder whether it hits at the raison d'être of the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to "empower"—that word has already been used—the person with a disability. If the payment is passed to a third person, it would enlarge the scope of the Bill and change the basis on which we arc proceeding today. There may he a good reason at some other stage to legitimise—if that is the word to use—the existing schemes which the noble Baroness mentioned. I am sure that they work well and that there is a good reason for them to exist, but I am not sure that this is the time to change the scope of the Bill by bringing them in. The amendment would certainly do that and I am against it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may disagree with my noble friend Lady Flather. Once again, if the intention is to follow the course of action set down in the amendment, it seems silly to write it out by not having the wording on the face of the Bill to start with.
Baroness Cumberlege: The provision in Clause 1 that a local authority may make payments to a person in lieu of services that they have been assessed as needing does not preclude that person from nominating an agent to receive the payment and to act on his or her behalf, so long as the user retains ultimate responsibility, as my noble friend Lady Flather said. No amendment is therefore necessary to enable individuals to receive assistance from a third party.
The crucial difference is that the Bill as drafted places the responsibility for managing the payments with the individual who needs community care services. Direct payments are intended to give the user more control over the way in which the care needs are met. The disabled person may well get help from his family or others in managing direct payments, but if they have the final say and not the user himself, then direct payments will not achieve the goal of increasing his independence and control.
We believe that the amendment would move a step away from the responsibility lying solely with the individual concerned. If adopted, the individual's consent would he needed only for the payments to he made to a third party and not for the arrangements which that third party makes subsequently. The Bill is intended to increase the power of individuals to make their own decisions. It does not rule out their having support to

397
make those decisions. But we must not dilute the principle that the decisions are for the individual to make, as my noble friend Lady Flather said.
With regard to safeguarding existing schemes, which was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others in the debate, it is up to local authorities to work within legal frameworks and decide whether those arrangements are legal. The Bill does not exclude the possibility of using a third party agent such as the voluntary organisations. I believe that Members of the Committee may not have appreciated the scope of the Bill as drafted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I listened intently but I am still not entirely clear. Can the Minister tell me whether existing schemes are legal and whether any future schemes will be legal?
Baroness Cumberlege: We know that existing schemes vary enormously. It is up to the local authorities to ensure that the schemes which they have up and running now are legal. Clearly they take advice on that, not least from the district auditors. I know that they have taken an interest in the area.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I had hoped that she might have seen the virtue of a more pluralistic response to the issue. We all take seriously the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The last thing one would wish is to make a disabled person dependent or newly re-dependent on some third party organisation, thereby having his or her rights reduced in a way that would not be the case if he or she was receiving direct payments from the local authority. No one wants that situation.
However, many of the voluntary organisation schemes are effective and often preferred when they are user-led. Apart from giving personal assistance, the organisations may provide a range of other support services; for example, independent living in the community. There is an array of other activities of support and help that third party schemes can currently offer. It may be the most appropriate and welcome way for the disbursement of payments. No one would wish in any sense—and certainly no one on these Benches—to limit the right of disabled persons to be fully in control of the disbursement and management of their direct payment funds. However, it may he that both in the original assessment and in the provision of support services, as well as the provision of ancillary services, the disabled person may find it more satisfactory to seek and obtain that help from a third party voluntary organisation than directly from a local authority which has less experience in such matters. We wish to make sure that the plurality of that provision remains possible, open and available in local circumstances. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell me whether that can still he the case?
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may reiterate my opening remarks. The Bill does not preclude a person wishing to receive direct payments from nominating an
398
agent to receive the payments and to act on his or her behalf so long as the user remains ultimately responsible. That is the point relating to the individual.
The noble Baroness made a second point, about different schemes. It would be very foolish of me to give an assurance at this Dispatch Box today that every scheme running in the country will continue. Schemes differ enormously. As I said, it is up to the local authorities to ensure that they are working within the legal framework.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted to hear my noble friend say that a disabled person or someone in receipt of community care will be able to receive a grant through an agent acting on his or her behalf who can be dismissed by them should they feel that the agent is not doing what they want. I quite understand that my noble friend cannot, without reference to a list and details of all existing schemes, say that they will continue to be legal in the future. We know that some of them are tolerated, even though they are not within the strict letter of the law, because they are experimental. They have been tolerated by local authorities, voluntary organisations and by my noble friend's own department. The mere fact that, like anyone else, someone in receipt of community care can dismiss an agent and employ another one, in exactly the same way as we could a solicitor if we did not like his or her work, is extremely welcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall have to take advice on this matter to see whether the Minister's answer meets our concerns. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page I. line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide for any such payment by the authority to be disregarded in the assessment of income-related benefits provided under section 123 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In this amendment we return to an issue raised at Second Reading—
Baroness Trumpington: Is the noble Baroness speaking also to Amendment No. 18, grouped with this one?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise to the Committee. In moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendment No. 18.
Again, this is a probing amendment. I hope it is unnecessary in the light of the Minister's remarks at Second Reading and the consultative document. Again, it would be very helpful to have a response on the record.
We seek to ensure, since a direct payment turns a service into cash, that that cash should not then he taken into account when assessing eligibility for the ordinary social security benefits, whether income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit or whatever. Clearly, if one were in receipt of a service,

399
it would not be taken into account. If one were in receipt of cash, it could be, since it is a form of income.
The Minister made clear at Second Reading, and in the consultative document, that such payments would be disregarded. Payments from the ILF are disregarded. We want the Minister's assurance on this point, not because we doubt her benign intent but because, bluntly, we want to bind, as far as we can, any future Minister to honour that commitment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I intervene only to ask whether my noble friend can possibly say a sentence or two about the new child support "Departures" scheme referred to in paragraph 43 of the consultative document dealing with social security benefits, which is the subject of this amendment. It would be very helpful if my noble friend could let us know what is involved in that.
Baroness Cumberllege: We have already made clear that direct payments will not be counted as income for the purposes of assessment of benefit entitlement. Benefits will continue to be paid on the same basis to disabled people, whether they choose services or cash payments in lieu of services, from their social services department. Nor would the benefits of a third party receiving payments on someone else's behalf be affected so long as the payments were spent entirely on purchasing services for that person.
The Government have given a firm commitment that, when necessary, social security regulations will be amended to provide for equal treatment between service users and direct payment recipients. That is the appropriate way of avoiding any unintentional effect on direct payment recipients' entitlement to benefits. It is unnecessary and cumbersome to seek to do so by amending this Bill.
Perhaps this may be helpful to my noble friend in reply to his point about child support. The child support maintenance formula will fully disregard direct payments. (I am not quite sure that that is what my noble friend seeks.) The child support departures scheme will take account of any direct payments in broadly the same way as it would have regard to community care services.
I am aware that that is an inadequate answer. I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think the Minister's consultative document confirms the answer that she just gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We are very pleased with the Minister's answer and I happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): In calling Amendment No. 11, I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, were this to he agreed to, I should not he able to call Amendment No. 12.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 11.
Page I, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19 and insert ("shall, in determining how much to pay to a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute.").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee for revisiting an issue in relation to which the Minister appeared to make the Government's views clear, but it is perhaps a little more complicated than it might seem. The same charging policy within local authorities which currently applies to services should also apply to direct payments—so if a service is free there should be no means testing for its equivalent service when translated into a direct payment. If there is a banded charge for services, a banded charge should be offset against direct payments; if it is means-tested, it should be means-tested. We are asking for a level playing field within each local authority. Clearly, local authorities will differ. Obviously, if resources permitted, we should all like such services to be free and no deductions to he made from direct payments. But that is not the real world, and we want to ensure a level playing field.
In her reply the Minister seemed to suggest that that is what the Government intended and expected would happen. In that case we are puzzled by the words on the face of the Bill. Perhaps our advice is wrong, but it seems to us that the words on the face of the Bill do not deliver that. They appear to apply harsher financial criteria to direct payments than is the existing case for services.
Perhaps I may give a little of what I understand to be the technical background. The power of a local authority to charge for services was formalised in Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which provides that where a local authority is satisfied that a person's means are,
"insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to pay for the service",
he should not be required to pay more than,
"it is reasonably practicable for him to pay".
In other words, the test now for any charging policy on services is one of reasonable practicability. But that phrasing, "reasonably practicable", has not been reproduced in the Bill. Instead, there is the harsher, more stringent criterion,
"have regard to his financial circumstances".
Even if a service was free, having regard to financial circumstances must mean that a person's situation must be means tested, whether you want to or not. Otherwise, it can have no meaning. "Have regard to his financial circumstances" must mean that at each and every point you must test for financial circumstances; namely, apply a means test.
Therefore we believe that by having different wording for the financial criteria applied to services at the moment and for direct payments on the face of this Bill introduces the possibility that there will not he the level playing field that the Minister, and we, want. Will the

401
Minister please reconsider the wording? Will she apply the wording that currently applies to services, to direct payments, thus making it transparently clear that there is a level playing field?
On an additional point, I understand that, should there be a dispute about the level of the charge, at present the local authority continues to provide the service until a dispute is resolved. Is it the Government's expectation that a similar response will apply to a dispute over direct payments? This is quite a difficult area. We hope that the Government will give us a clear reply now and perhaps, if necessary, follow it up with authoritative guidance as to what constitutes disability-related expenditure and how it may be verified. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am not quite clear whether it is appropriate for me to raise my point on this or the next amendment. However, I feel that I should raise it at this juncture. It is about the liability of the recipient of a direct payment to pay VAT on the bills that might be submitted for personal services contracted for. For the local authority, there is no VAT to pay in respect of services which they provide, because it is a service in kind. But let us suppose that a disabled person purchases personal services from a firm supplying people to give personal support. If that firm's total turnover is above the level of about £45,000, which is the present level, it is obliged to charge VAT.
I understand that health services specifically are exempted and always have been exempted from any charge for VAT. There have been continuing arguments in another place—I daresay echoes have been heard in this Chamber—about VAT on appliances and other aids to help disabled people. But I am not clear on what happens about a firm which may provide personal services and may undertake to supply someone for three hours a day for five days a week, for example, to a disabled person to help with personal care and so on, sending someone in in the morning and again in the evening to help them get up and go to bed. If that firm is registered for VAT, will the payments be chargeable to VAT and will the disabled person have to pay it?
If the answer is yes, the question which follows from that is whether the direct payments which will be made by the local authority will be sufficient to cover the VAT as well as the direct cost of the service being supplied by the firm. It seems to me that in some circumstances people will face a choice: either they can employ someone, in which case, as we discussed earlier, they will land themselves with problems of national insurance and PAYE if the hours come above the minimum; or they can contract with a firm—or indeed a self-employed person—and pay them the sum gross. But if that person—it is more likely to be a firm, simply because of the nature of the work—has a turnover above the threshold limit for VAT, that person will have to charge VAT because he himself would be charged it by the Customs and Excise.
402
I hope that I have spoken for long enough to enable my noble friend to locate the answer to that question, in which she knows that I am interested and that I may now sit down.
Lord Carter: As the noble Lord said, we shall reach Amendment No. 19, which deals with VAT. But to help the Minister perhaps I may now contribute on this point and deal with it. Then Amendment No. 19, which I am supposed to move, will obviously be withdrawn. All the points have, in fact, been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is an important point about VAT that local authorities, but not individuals, can reclaim VAT if the agency is registered for VAT.
There is a minefield here because of the EU directives regarding the level of VAT. That may cause problems. There would seem to be a difficulty if an individual receives direct payments which attract VAT and the recipient is not able to reclaim it because he is not able to register.
I wonder whether a way round that difficulty is to apply zero rating. Zero is a rate of VAT and the payments would be exempt. Are we allowed to apply a zero rate to direct payments under EU directives?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I, too, support the noble Baroness's amendment. An identical means test is encouraging, and is very much what my amendment—Amendment No. 12—is about. In some ways, I prefer my amendment, in that it clearly states that the tests should be identical. However, it may be that the noble Baroness's amendment is more acceptable.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. It may influence me very much in what I do about Amendment No. 12.
Baroness Cumberlege: I think the amendments are very similar. I hope that what I am about to say will meet the needs of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
We understand and share the concern that neither service users nor direct payment recipients should he treated more favourably one than the other in the question of the financial contribution that each is expected to make toward the cost of their care. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that the Bill might appear to apply harsher criteria for direct payments than when charging for services. That is not true. Local authorities do not have to charge users of services. They have discretion there and we should want them to have discretion with regard to direct payments.
The Bill gives local authorities the discretion on whether or not to take someone's financial circumstances into account. It does not require them to do so. The Bill also gives local authorities discretion on how they take someone's financial circumstances into account. This is intended to mirror the situation which currently exists in relation to charges for non-residential care, where local authorities can decide whether or not to charge, and how much to charge. It is the Government's aim to create a level playing field on the issue of whether, and how much, people pay towards the

403
cost of their care, so that there are no perverse financial incentives to seek direct payments or, indeed, to refuse direct payments.
It is therefore the Government's intention to issue Section 7 guidance on this issue. The guidance will stress that local authorities must treat people fairly, and should treat both service users and direct payment recipients in an equivalent manner. So, when considering the financial contribution that direct payment recipients should make towards the cost of their care package, the authority should treat them in the same way as they would have treated them under the authority's charging policy had the individual been receiving the equivalent services.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for giving way. If she is saying that the local authorities should treat them in the same way, why does she not use the same words?
Baroness Cumberlege: We have made it quite clear in the Bill but, if the noble Baroness feels that there is something better that we can do, perhaps we can discuss it before the next stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may now address the concerns of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding about VAT. I understand that there is an amendment that has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. No amendment is necessary to ensure that direct payments are not subject to VAT. VAT is a tax on supplies. It is not due on payments which the local authority makes to an individual to enable that individual to buy services.
People who receive direct payments may have to pay VAT on some of the services that they purchase. Many of the uses which recipients will make of direct payments will not incur VAT—for example, if they employ their own personal assistant or purchase services from an agency operating below the VAT threshold or from a charity providing services on a not-for-profit basis.
Payment of VAT is something that individuals will wish to consider when deciding from whom to purchase their services. Clearly that is an issue which local authorities will have to take into account when they are deciding the level of the direct payment.
Lord Carter: I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer to my next point, which is a highly technical one. It will be interesting to know whether the Government will have the power by regulation to apply to those services a zero rate—which is a rate of VAT—instead of the rate of 15 per cent.
Baroness Cumberlege: We are trying to ensure that the recipients of direct payments act in the same way as other members of the public. This provision is to try to give them more independence. We should be reluctant to do this, because we hope that the independence that they gain puts them much more on an equal footing with members of the general public.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may come back on that point. First, let me offer a profound apology to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Although I had laboriously entered his amendment as a number on my Bill, I failed
404
to read it. I do apologise. I had given notice on an earlier occasion that I intended to raise this matter. However, with great respect to my noble friend I am not sure whether she has addressed the problem.
It must be the case that, as direct payments become more common and their acceptability becomes more widespread, highly specialised, expert firms will be formed to undertake to deliver expert and trained services to the people who need them.
As I said earlier, from the beginning health services which are supplied under contract have always been exempt from VAT. It is difficult to see why, say, domiciliary nursing services—somebody coming in to nurse a terminally-ill patient, which is not uncommon—should be free of VAT, but somebody who comes in to look after a disabled person and who may he providing many of the same services—somebody with a high level of training—should, because they are supplied by a firm which is above the threshold, incur VAT.
The practical problem will arise when the local authority is deciding whether to make a direct payment after the client has applied for it and indicated that he or she wishes to contract with Personal Services plc (or whatever it may be called). The council may say that that will cost more because they are liable to VAT and it will pay only what would be required if the firm was below the threshold for that tax.
In the consultation document and in her opening speech at Second Reading my noble friend gave the example that, if somebody wanted a service which costs £300 and the local authority knows that it can he contracted for £200, why should the council pay the extra £100? Yet the difference may be the VAT at 17.5 per cent. It is militating against the growth of extremely valuable services and highly specialised companies employing skilled, trained assistants which could provide an admirable service for people in receipt of direct payments.
I cannot expect my noble friend to give what may be a Treasury answer from the Front Bench in this debate. However, this is a problem which needs to be addressed. I cannot understand why there should be a distinction between health services and social services in that regard when one is dealing with a defined category of people; namely, those who qualify for local government support by direct payments.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: To add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, in practice there may be a number of cases where the service rendered is only partially related to health. I can well imagine a situation where someone comes in to help with a simple dressing or other minor help a disabled person may need by way of treatment and then tidies up the living room and makes up the bed. Where does health stop and other domiciliary services begin? If one is VAT-free and the other VAT-charged, the situation will become extremely complicated.
Lord Carter: As we are discussing the amendment relating to VAT, perhaps I may respond to that. It may

405
mean that the recipient has to choose a supplier of a service on the basis of cost rather than skill. We all know, when obtaining quotes for painting our homes, the difference in the cost between a painter registered for VAT and one that is not. It tends to affect the size of the quote. Effectively, the recipient may be saying, "I would sooner have this other person but, because they will cost more due to the rate of VAT, I shall have to choose a supplier who is not so effective but is cheaper". The Government must look at that as an important point.
To return to the zero rate point—I do not want to overemphasise this—it is common for a supplier who is supplying a service in the UK to have to apply the VAT rate; but if he is supplying that service for somebody overseas he applies a zero rate. It is as simple as that. If those services can be included in the category of the zero rate, it may solve the problem.
Lord Swinfen: It is not uncommon that a disabled person receiving community care will not be buying medical or health services at all. A disabled person can be described as quite healthy, despite their disabilities, and will not have a need for health services.
It may be helpful for my noble friend to postpone answering the question on VAT in relation to this amendment and to take a little time to obtain advice. The issue will come up again on Amendment No. 27.
Baroness Cumberlege: I like the government health warning; I shall accept it. Clearly this is an issue that needs further consideration.
A difficulty exists as to whether we draw a distinction between those receiving direct payments and their requirement to pay VAT—or not to pay it, as Members suggest—and those who buy the services through "normal channels". It would be unfair to discriminate between those two groups of people. The matter needs further consideration and perhaps this is one of those issues in which Members of the Committee excel in pointing out that there is something we need to consider further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My delay in rising arises from the fact that we seem to have spent most of the time talking about Amendment No. 19 rather than Amendment No. 11. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("in an identical manner to that which the local authority would have applied had they themselves provided the service.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. I2 is self-explanatory; that is, to ensure that means testing for services and for direct payments are identical. It seeks to do almost exactly what the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, sought to do.
I am a good deal reassured by the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 11. However, I would be happier if she could state categorically that the tests will be identical. We have had a great deal of discussion on other matters
406
and I should like to read and reflect on the whole question. I shall be extremely grateful if the Minister will, outside the Chamber if necessary, agree further to discuss the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: A number of issues have been raised in this Committee stage where a meeting will be extremely valuable to many Members. This amendment is one of those and I suggest we put it on the agenda.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before calling Amendment No. 13, I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 inclusive.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 should really have been grouped with Amendments Nos. 14 to 17. If the Minister and the Committee do not object—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who tabled Amendment No. 17, does not object—in moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 17. They all cover the same subject.
The amendments concern the categories of people who may act as personal assistants. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that describe the categories of people a disabled person may not employ as a personal assistant. The amendment would remove that power completely. This is a probing amendment. I do not intend to divide the Chamber. It is intended to allow discussion on the kinds of people who may or may not be excluded.
We feel that we need some clarification from the Government regarding their intentions as to precisely who is likely to be excluded under the provision. During Second Reading the Minister indicated that informal carers will be excluded as their role is different to that of paid employees who provide care on a formal basis. Direct payments are not intended to replace existing support networks within the families and communities.
We have now received the consultation paper which presumably indicates what will be contained in guidance. At the moment the direct payment schemes tend to operate under a similar definition to that used by the Independent Living Fund; that is, that the payment cannot be made unless the disabled person lives alone or with someone who cannot provide for all their care needs. On first reading of the consultation paper, in paragraphs 24 and 25 the Government appear to he widening the exclusion from that contained in the Independent Living Fund rules. If the Government intend to do that, it would be helpful if the Minister would say so.
Also, the Government picked up the point which I know was made to them in discussion that,

407
"Local authorities will have discretion to make exceptions to the rules set out in this guidance in exceptional circumstances, where they are satisfied that it is not possible to find a suitable person to provide care who does not fall into one of these categories"—
the ones that they have excluded—
"For example, the recipient may live in a sparsely populated rural area, or may have cultural or religious reasons for needing to employ only people from the same ethnic background. In certain areas, such a person may only be available within the recipient's family".
That is a quote from the consultation document. However, in the "exceptional circumstances" it seems that residence is not mentioned. If there is a need for an exception, perhaps under the examples the Government give—the recipient lives in a sparsely populated rural area or comes from an ethnic community—will the residency exclusion still apply? If the only person who can supply that help is in the recipient's house, will he or she still be excluded?
The widening of the exclusions, which we feel has happened in the consultation paper, could undermine the objective of direct payments in promoting independent living. We all know of the tasks of personal assistants. They may be involved in personal and intimate matters such as dressing, bathing and toileting. The popularity of direct payment schemes is rooted in the greater opportunity for the disabled person to choose exactly who is to do these tasks and to ensure that they are undertaken in such a way as a disabled person desires. The choice of person is therefore integral to independent living. We are not trying to widen the idea to formalise the present informal arrangements, but we need to know a little more about the way in which the Government will look at the exclusions policy and about whom in fact they intend to exclude.
Some research was conducted on the Independent Living Fund by the Policy Studies Institute which found, not surprisingly, that family helpers scored highly on appropriateness and reliability although less highly on control and empowerment. However, the overall score for family help on the choice score was 47 compared with 20 for direct employees and 38 for agency staff.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 14 to 17. A point has been made by the Alzheimer's Disease Society about the position of people with dementia. That is a special situation. We need to clarify whether the Government plan to enable direct payments to be paid to a relative or to a partner of a person who is mentally incapacitated, and, if so, under what arrangements. That point has been specifically raised by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. We all know that dementia is a progressive and degenerative condition and that circumstances can change. Do the Government intend that direct payments could he paid to a carer who was caring for someone who had Alzheimer's on a degenerating basis? Because they are excluded at the beginning of the scheme, we do not feel that that should continue. There is also the position with regard to HIV or AIDS. With regard to the small numbers of people with HIV or AIDS who feel safe only when their personal care is given by immediate family members, is that one of the exceptional circumstances which the Government will recognise?
I have mentioned the problem of rural areas, with which I am familiar. How do the Government intend to define "living in the same household"? For example, will someone who is living in a so-called granny flat be allowed to pay his relatives in the home? We now have the definition of "close relatives" for which we were going to ask. That is in the consultation paper. It seems to be wider than the rules under the Independent Living Fund. Altogether I feel that the Government have to be a little clearer than they have been in consultation and in previous discussions on the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I do not expect to succeed in trying to persuade the Minister to think again about the position of the informal carer living in the house of the person needing care. The Alzheimer's disease case has already been quoted. It is an obvious one but there are others. If a person who needs the care is incapable of handling the money himself—in a case such as Alzheimer's, which progresses, that is undoubtedly true—and he has in the house a daughter who has given up her job in order to look after this person, what could be more suitable than that the money which would be available to the person needing care or the services which he would have received from the local authority under the old scheme could be passed to the informal carer who could then go and buy the care from outside?
That is the most obvious and practical way of alleviating what is the incredibly difficult position of the single person living in a house, someone with a deteriorating mental condition, who needs to buy outside help, who would have received the outside help from the local authority. I suppose one could say that in those circumstances the person would take the local authority help. But why should he be forced to do that if he can have the money and make an arrangement by employing someone from outside who can relieve the position of both the person needing care and the extremely tense and deteriorating position of the person—usually a woman—who is trying to give that care in very difficult circumstances? Can the Government not think again about this?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The rules are intended to he the same as to whether the local authority is providing the service direct or whether the local authority is making a direct payment to the beneficiary. Perhaps I must postulate a case slightly different from that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I read her remarks at Second Reading with some interest. Let us say that a wife has given up employment in order to look after her husband because the local authority has said that it can provide a local authority service. The wife says that she would like to look after her husband herself rather than have social workers coming in who are strangers. In those circumstances, it is always open to the wife to say, "We are going to have to have more support in our retirement. I really have to get hack to work. I have to increase the family earnings. We shall therefore ask, although it is a second best, the local authority to provide the service". As I understand the matter. in those circumstances the local authority cannot refuse if the service is of a kind which it would provide.

409
If my noble friend can tell me that exactly the same provision applies in a case where a family member wants to go back to work and there is a direct payment, I will feel that much of the difficulty that has been aired about this provision may disappear. If, on the other hand, as seems to be implied in the speeches made in support of the amendment, it will somehow be more restrictive if there are direct payments and that under no circumstances could the payments be made in the circumstances I have described, I shall have some anxiety. However, as I have understood the position, I do not think that is the case. Provided that the rules are exactly the same, that will be fair between those who are able to get direct payments and those who are not. The family member who has been looking after the person will be able to go back to work and earn and in those circumstances the direct payment can be made and the service can be bought instead of the family member looking after the relative.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Am I not right in thinking that we are running together two significant issues which perhaps would be more helpfully explored separately? The issue raised by my noble friend Lord Carter was whether the disabled person could employ a relative as a personal carer and that personal carer could then be paid as though he or she were any other person employed from an agency. The concern expressed by my noble friend was that the Government are now making it illegal, we understand, for people who could be paid under the ILF scheme to be paid under the local authority direct payments scheme. Local authorities will retain a discretion in exceptional circumstances—rural areas, ethnic minorities and possibly the HIV or AIDS cases—but nevertheless the presumption is that a whole raft of people who currently could be employed and paid will not now be so. That was the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Carter and others.
The second and equally important issue was the one addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as to whether someone in the household—a close relative—could act as manager of the money. The money would be paid to them and they in turn would go on to employ a third party. As I understand it, that has always been the case under the Bill. I do not think that that is particularly problematic. The local authority can make payments either to the disabled person or to an appropriate carer who can then go on to employ other people to do the caring.
Therefore, I believe that the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are, as I understand it, rightly covered in the Bill, but those raised by my noble friend Lord Carter are not. We would especially welcome the Minister's help on that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the Minister whose department deals with HIV and AIDS, the noble
410
Baroness will know that those people are now covered by the legislation dealing with discrimination. Therefore, how will this work?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Amendment No. 17 is in my name so perhaps I should speak to it now. I support the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaks very eloquently and he also speaks very fast. On paper it may seem that I am repeating all that he said. I have also tried to précis so I apologise if I make no sense now, but I shall do my best.
I shall deal with the second part of my amendment first because we have been discussing families, including a family member whether or not he or she resides with the person in receipt of the payment and whether or not the direct payment can be received. I understand the difficulties and the pitfalls in accepting that. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has said, but I ask the Minister to consider it carefully, particularly if the relative is not living with the person he or she is helping. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said about the carer.
As regards the non-relative residing with the person in receipt of the payment, I would not like to see a disabled person unable to employ a lodger to look after him or her or to offer accommodation to a carer whether on payment of a rent or otherwise. It would rule out a great many genuine helpers. I know of a number of very severely disabled people who employ people to look after them and, as part of the deal, provide them with accommodation. Indeed, I know of one person who, on becoming disabled, moved into a larger house precisely in order to be able to offer accommodation to a series of helpers. Many severely disabled people are looked after by community service volunteers and they allow the volunteers to live in their homes. Indeed, accommodating the CSVs is an essential part of the service. When considering severely disabled people, I guess that the majority who are not looked after by a spouse will be looked after by someone living with them. It is very important that that should not preclude a direct payment being made because it is precisely for that type of person, particularly the young disabled, that many of us have argued for so long for direct payments to be allowed. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I note at Second Reading that the Minister said:
"we do not intend to use this power significantly to restrict the individual's choice of support".—[Official Report, 7/12/95; col. 1051.]
Therefore, I hope that she can relax as regards relatives and particularly those who are non-resident and perhaps also non-relatives who are resident.
Baroness Cumberlege: Direct payments will he an alternative to community care services, which would otherwise be arranged by the local authority. They are not intended to replace existing support networks within families and communities. The relationship which someone has with family or friends who provide care is very different from the relationship someone has with a person whom they are employing to provide care. The

411
reason for the provision in Clause 1(3) is to avoid creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis.
If there were no restrictions, there is a risk that payments recipients might come under pressure to employ family members when that is not what they really want to do. Conversely, a parent or spouse who did not want to give up their employment might find it difficult to resist pressure to give up their job and take on full-time care if there would be no loss of income.
The Government recognise that there is a balance to be drawn between, an the one hand, preventing the formalisation of informal care, as I have described, and, on the other hand, not prohibiting sensible and appropriate arrangements. In particular, the Government have no intention of preventing people from being able to employ live-in personal care assistants.
We therefore propose to make regulations under this provision which will prohibit payments recipients from paying their spouse, partner or a close relative living in the same household to provide a service. In this context we intend to define a close relative as a parent, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, grandparent, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson or daughter, brother, sister or the spouse or partner of any of these.
In addition, we intend to issue guidance to say that local authorities should not make direct payments where the recipient intends to employ or contract with close relatives who live elsewhere, or other people living in the same household, unless the latter are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants. Local authorities would have the power to make exceptions to this guidance in exceptional cases—I suspect that AIDS and HIV may well be one of those—where they were satisfied that there was no other way to find a suitable person to provide care.
We are consulting on these proposals for regulations and guidance, and will take account of the consultation responses, and the comments of this House, before making our final decision.
Baroness Seear: I am still confused about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the wife who has given up work to look after the husband and was able to have some local authority help under the existing scheme. As the noble Lord postulated, if she then decided to go back to work, but in order to do so, thought it better to have the money and employ someone rather than use the local authority services, she would he unable to do so. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Baroness Cumberlege: No. We are trying to put direct payments on the same footing as the community care which is provided through services. It depends on the initial assessment. For the schemes that I have seen that is the situation. People who were formerly carers have gone hack to work and they are employing someone through direct payment because they qualify for community care services. They have been given that option. Our whole intention is not to make this scheme
412
different in that respect, but the same. If that is not quite clear perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. The Minister is making a distinction between regulation and guidance. From what she has said, am I right in understanding that under regulation close relatives who live in the same household will not be able to be employed and receive direct payment from the disabled person, but for close relatives who do not live in the same household but on, say, the other side of town, the guidance will say that they should not be employed, but that the local authority will have complete discretion to waive those conditions where they judge the circumstances to be exceptional? Am I also correct in understanding that there will be no limitation by the Government on the exercise of local authority discretion because, clearly, we cannot anticipate all such exceptional circumstances?
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness has put it very succinctly and that is how I understand the position. If there is any change to that, then perhaps it is another issue that we can discuss when we meet.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise to the Committee for prolonging this point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put the matter in a different way to the Minister and the consultation document, which refers to exceptional circumstances being where the local authority is satisfied that it is not possible to find a suitable person to provide care. That is not necessarily the same as some of the exceptions to which Members of the Committee have alluded, taking it from the point of view of the person to be cared for who will have views as to who might be best, for very personal reasons, to provide that care. In other words, that relates to the receiving end rather than the providing end. It seems to me that the consultation document deals only with one of those ends. Can the Minister take that distinction on hoard as part of the further consideration?
6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: To some extent that is reflected in the community care Act. Clearly, we are not trying to draw a distinction, but to start with the same form of assessment which is made through the community care Act. As I said, this may be a matter which the Committee would prefer to have further clarified and I am very happy to do that.
Perhaps I may now address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17. Direct payments will he an alternative to community care services which would otherwise he arranged by the local authority. The relationship which someone has with family or friends who provide care is, as I have already said, very different from the relationship that someone has with a person whom they are employing to provide care. The reason for the provision in Clause 1(3) is to avoid the pressure for informal care to be put on a formal, contractual basis. If there were no restrictions, there is a risk that payment recipients might come under pressure to employ family

413
or friends when that is not really what they want. As I have said, conversely, a parent or a spouse who did not want to give up employment might find it difficult to resist pressure to give up that job and to take on full-time care, especially if there was no loss of income.
The Government recognise that a balance needs to he struck. We are trying to be careful to prevent the formalisation of informal care and are trying not to prohibit sensible and appropriate arrangements. We have no intention of preventing people from being able to employ living-in personal care assistants.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a most interesting suggestion with regard to people living alone or with another person who is unable to meet their care needs. I can see that, like us, the noble Lord is seeking to achieve a balance. The Government propose to make regulations to prohibit payment recipients from paying a spouse, partner or close relative living in the same household for providing a service. As your Lordships are aware, we have set out the relationships that we think appropriate in this context.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the ILF rules and whether the definition of "close relative" is wider in this context than that provided by the ILF. The noble Lord asked whether we are now making illegal what is legal under the ILF scheme. I can reassure him that the proposed regulations adopt the same rules as the ILF. The proposals for guidance go further but allow exceptions. As I have said, it is a question of trying to strike a balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked whether the exclusions would apply where the only person available lives with the recipient. Yes, in those exceptional circumstances local authorities will have the discretion to make payments where the recipient intends to employ or contract someone living in the same household. The consultation paper gives a couple of examples, but it is up to local authorities to decide when it is appropriate to make exceptions to the guidance.
The noble Lord also asked whether informal carers will be able to receive and manage payments on behalf of a disabled person. As I have already explained, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent someone asking a third party to receive and manage direct payments on their behalf. That third party may well be a member of the family, but the person needing care must consent to the arrangement and will retain ultimate responsibility for the money. This is an area in which we need more explanation and clarity. As I have said, I am willing to discuss this when we meet.
Lord Carter: I must start with an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and, indeed, the Committee for speaking too quickly. I really must speak more slowly.
In these amendments we are seeking to establish the difference between regulations and guidance. That point was quickly and well put by my noble friend Lady Hollis. If the regulations state that you cannot employ a close relative but if in exceptional circumstances a close relative is the only person who can provide that service,
414
does the local authority have the discretion to ignore the regulations and make a direct payment? I refer to cases where the close relative who is the only person who can supply the service lives in the same household as the disabled person. We have given examples relating to ethnic groups, rural areas and cases involving HIV and AIDS. Does a local authority have discretion, through guidance, in effect to ignore the regulations?
Baroness Cumberlege: We need to remind ourselves of the three basic principles underlying the Bill. The first is flexibility. It is important that local authorities should be given enough flexibility to exercise their duties and to be fair to all concerned. The second principle is simplicity and the third is trust. If we can keep to those three tenets, we cannot go far wrong. Flexibility is the most important with regard to the point made by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked whether local authorities can ignore regulations. The answer is no.
Lord Carter: That makes the point that the exceptions cannot overcome the regulations. Therefore, if the close relative is the only person who can provide the service, the regulations stop the local authority exercising its discretion. I think that that is what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Cumberlege: I suspect that this issue will he hotly debated when we go out to consultation on the regulations or the guidance document.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has got herself into the position of saying that a close relative is excluded under the regulations but may be employed under the guidance and that the difference between the two is whether the relative lives in the same household. Will not that mean that that person is pressed to move out of the house, thus moving out of the category of regulations and into the category of guidance, whereupon the local authority may then operate discretion? That is batty. Clearly we need to sort this out.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure that she will agree with me that that would be impractical in some rural areas because there would not be anywhere else close enough for the relative to live and still he able to provide the care that was needed.
Lord Carter: I think that we have had enough and that the Minister is now aware of the difficulty. I am sure that this matter will need further discussion. Perhaps I may give the Committee a final example that has been passed to me. Where someone is getting a payment from the ILF, he or she may employ a close relative. If in future the local authority's contribution is made in cash, the disabled person will not be able to pay the relative with that money, although he or she already uses ILF money to pay the relative and it may well make sense to employ that person. That means that there is no choice. This is the difficulty that we are in.
Baroness Seear: I can envisage getting even more confused. If a close relative cannot he employed while

415
living in the same house, what happens if the house is divided into two flats and the close relative moves into the upstairs flat? Can that person then be employed?
Baroness Cumberlege: I am sure that we can all think of some interesting schemes in this context, but I still think that a balance needs to be drawn. Although a relative may want to give the care that the dependent person needs, the dependent person might not want that relative to provide that care. What is often at issue is that one cannot sack one's closest relative. The disabled person has to be in control. What is important is how we strike the right balance.
Lord Carter: I think that we have discussed this enough and that the Minister is aware that the matter needs further discussion. Indeed, that is the point of Committee stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Where a payment made under subsection (I) above covers part of the cost of services far a purchaser, the authority may provide directly the remainder of the required services.").
The noble Baroness said: I wondered whether we were going to rediscuss Amendment No. 18 and whether we might make the same speeches and receive the same replies.
However, turning to Amendment No. 20, we discussed earlier on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 the fact that many clients will need a mix of direct payments and services. This amendment would permit a client receiving direct payments to buy services not only from private providers, such as agencies or by employing an individual person, but also from local authorities. I realise that in the consultative document the Government said that that may mean extra bureaucracy and that we do not want to pay a person money only to have them re-employ the same person who would have provided the service in the first place. However, perhaps I may try to shift the Minister from her original response.
It is clear that many services—probably most—ranging from cleaning services to taxi services will he purchased from the private sector, but there will be other services which might be quite specialised for which there will not he much in the way of a local market and it may be that the local authority will provide the best value for money for the client, especially in the light of Amendment No. 19 on the VAT requirement under which purchasing a service from the local authority will obviate the need for VAT. Clearly, many disabilities involve similar care needs, but particular disabilities may have quite specialist care needs—I refer, for example, to blindness and to the fluctuating care needs that are due to, say, multiple sclerosis—when it might he appropriate to purchase care from the local authority through direct payment rather than from a private provider, particularly in a vast rural area where there may not he a well established private market.
It would seem foolish artificially to limit where a disabled person can place his contract. Over and beyond that, there will certainly be occasions when privately purchased services will falter or fail and emergency situations in which a carer is ill, a service collapses or an agency fails to deliver. In that situation, a client must be able to turn to the local authority and expect to purchase those services from it in the interim.
In circumstances in which a client wishes to purchase services from the local authority because they are specialist services, because they may he a statutorial area, because there may not be alternative agencies from which he can choose to purchase, or because he may believe that the local authority offers better value for money, or circumstances in which he may need to turn to the local authority for emergency cover, we believe it important that that option should be available and not artificially restricted. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I do not wish to trample over the VAT ground again. However, the suggestion that the client may buy his services from the local authority because the local authority will not charge VAT may be misconceived. At present local authorities cannot sell their services and therefore they are not in the trading area in this field of their activities. If they were free to sell their services and they came above the threshold I cannot conceive that Her Majesty's Customs & Excise would prevent their being liable for VAT. As a local authority almost certainly would be above the threshold, the argument would tilt the other way.
It is interesting to note that the paper we have received from the Association of Directors of Social Services states:
"From an ADSS perspective",
and those are interesting words because they point to the direction in which these admirable people are looking,
"it is important that a 'level playing field' be created for an individual in receipt of direct payments to be free to purchase services not only from the independent agencies and individuals but also from local authorities."
It is not a matter of a level playing field hut a matter of sheer common sense that if a local authority is capable of providing the services and the individual wants them from the local authority the existing arrangements can perfectly well continue. To interpose a nexus of a payment one way and then a payment the other way—the noble Baroness is shaking her head but she will have an opportunity to prove me wrong in a moment—would be unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic, as the consultation paper states.
Surely the purpose of this exercise is to enable people to go outside and make their own choice. To imagine that somehow it is greatly widening the choice if they can say after an admirable local authority social worker has provided them with services, "Ah, now I have got the money I am now going to pay the local authority for the same admirable person to come in", seems to be rather ridiculous.
It would be a major change in the law to allow local authorities to enter the market to provide these services in competition with the agencies, charities, firms and so forth. What the Bill envisages is immensely sensible. Of

417
course, the client can have a mixture; he can have a direct payment for some of his services and can have the local authority providing the balance. That is made perfectly clear in the consultation paper. It seems to me to he the sensible way of doing it.
Lord Swinfen: That is what I understand the amendment does, which is why I was puzzled when it was moved. I agree with the amendment, as I understand it. It provides, I understand, that the recipient of community care can elect to have part of his care provided in the form of grant and then he buys that care for himself. However, if he wishes to do so he can retain that care from the local authority if the local authority is the only provider of that particular kind of care in the area or if the recipient of community care deems that the local authority is the best provider. I believe that that is right. Let the individual recipient decide how best he wants those services and control his care himself.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There appears to be some misunderstanding and if I have contributed to that I apologise to the Committee. I was trying to make the point that the amendment is not about the privatisation of care by putting it through the cash mechanism. It is about choice. It is about putting the disabled person at the centre of the choice mechanism.
Clearly, as the Minister made clear on Second Reading, it was always open to a disabled person in negotiation with his social worker to go for a mix of direct payments and services from the local authority. That has not been in dispute; that mixture applies. However, it may he that the client wishes to use his direct payments to purchase services from the local authority.
There is a difference between my reading of what the Bill intends and what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, appears to believe it intends. I believe that, if the individual client is purchasing services with direct payments, whether from the local authority or from any other private body, that individual client remains at the centre of the care system. He decides who, how, when and in what way even though he is purchasing from the local authority. That is not the case and cannot be the case when he is simply the recipient of services. If he is the recipient of services he must fit the local authority pattern of managing that care.
The question and the real issue is whether we are empowering the disabled person. Yes, we hope to do so. Do we unnecessarily limit the choice of that disabled person as regards the supplier from whom he can purchase his services? Unless we accept the amendment, I fear that we may do. That is why I hope the Minister will feel able to support it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Does the noble Baroness not recognise the logic of what she was saying? It is that the local authority can perfectly well provide precisely the service that the individual wants but is prepared to do so only if there is a financial nexus. That is a pretty strange proposition to put forward. Either it can or it cannot. If it can, it should, and, if it cannot, the service ought to be bought outside anyway. I do not see the
418
point of having the right to buy the service from the local authority. It is a double handling of money and will add to the cost.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Why is the noble Lord so reluctant to allow the disabled person to make that choice?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am not.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may put the Government's view. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary because the Bill already allows people to receive a combination of direct payments and local authority arranged services, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said.
Under subsection (1), the local authority may make payments to someone in relation to any of the services for which it has decided his needs call. That leaves open the possibility that it may provide direct payments in relation to some but not all of the services which the individual needs.
Under Clause 2, the local authority retains the responsibility to arrange services except where the individual's needs are met through the arrangements that he has made using direct payments. It follows that, where the local authority provides direct payments in lieu of some but not all of the services which it has assessed an individual as needing, it has the duty to arrange the direct provision of the remainder. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not entirely sure that it has met all the points that we have raised. We shall wish to study the Minister's reply and perhaps return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy of Chairman of Committees: I should tell the Committee that, if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 inclusive.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 21:
Page I, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("( ) A payment under subsection (1) above shall not be exercisable in relation to the provision of residential accommodation except for such temporary care for respite purposes as is determined by the local authority, and only at the request of the direct payments user.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21 deals with the question of respite care. It is intended to tease out the point of whether direct payments can be used for the respite care of either the recipient or the carer and, if so, under what circumstances. I have looked at the consultation paper quickly because I received it only today, and I do not believe that that is mentioned at all.
There is a four-week limit to residential accommodation in the consultation document. We are not entirely clear what the situation is in regard to respite care. We know that the concept and practice of direct payments came from disabled people who were looking for an alternative to either full-time residential

419
or part-time respite care. We know that personal assistants enable disabled people to remain in their homes and give their partners or informal carers the opportunity to leave the home for employment or recreation. We have received comments from people who say how much they appreciate the direct relationship that this permits and that residential care obviously produces a number of problems.
The Government have said in consultation that they will limit the amount allowed to be spent to four weeks in any 12 months. How does that apply to respite care that the recipient wants to use over and above the four weeks? Can it apply to the carer? How does all of this fit in to the Government's wish to see use made of the payment? Will it be met by other aspects of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, or will it have to he dealt with only through the particular avenue of direct payments? I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: It is essential that an element of respite care should be provided under the terms of the Bill in order to allow those who are normally caring for the individual to have a holiday, for their unpaid relatives who will be helping also to have a break and possibly even to allow the disabled person to have a break from his or her relatives who are providing that care. We all need breaks every now and again. Where there is a large team of carers, it will be very much more expensive to recruit a completely new team to cover the periods when the normal carers are on holiday or when family and friends who are doing unpaid work are away. It will probably be cheaper, more effective and efficient to provide respite care than to ignore it altogether. This may well be something that is required in an emergency where full-time carers suddenly become ill or relatives have to go into hospital. These are matters that cannot he foreseen but we should be prepared to deal with them.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand this amendment, it seeks to write on the face of the Bill the principle that I have said will guide regulations made unde,r subsection (4). I have explained previously that this provision is intended to exclude the use of direct payments to pay for long-term residential care but to leave open the possibility that they may be used for temporary care for respite. This is an area in which we consider it desirable to lay down national parameters because this is a new untried development. The regulations will be adjusted to keep them sensibly aligned with social security regulations. This is one of the specific questions that is asked in the consultation document in the box at the top of page 10:
"Q. Do you agree that the maximum period for which direct payments may be used to pay for residential accommodation should he four weeks in any twelve month period? Q. If not, do you think the maximum should be shorter or longer? What would you propose instead? Why?"
We believe that this is a matter that needs national debate.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply. If the consultation reveals that there is overwhelming evidence to support an eight-week limit on respite care in any 12 months, for
420
example, will the Government be prepared to listen? They have chosen a four-week period, but are they prepared to listen to other suggestions? I see that the Minister agrees.
This has been a short but helpful debate. It was not entirely clear from a reading of the consultation document exactly how the two points about permanent and temporary residential care marched together. I believe that I now see what the Government are driving at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 22 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 31 which have been tabled together. I regret that my noble friend Lady Cox, who has put her name to this amendment, cannot be here this evening. She has been delayed on her return from a humanitarian visit to distant parts and will not he back in this country until much later tonight. I also regret that my noble friend Lord Renton has not been able to put his name to these amendments or speak to them. Unfortunately, he contracted viral pneumonia over the Christmas break. I am sure we all hope that he will be hack with us as soon as possible. I believe that he is making reasonable progress.
I should declare an interest as the unpaid honorary president of RESCARE (the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care). These amendments follow on from what I said and the questions that I asked—not all of which have been answered—in the debate on the gracious Speech on 20th November last year, at cols. 200 to 203, and the Second Reading debate on this Bill on 7th December, at cols. 1,064 to 1,068. Those interventions are integral to a full understanding of these amendments. Although I shall not repeat all of them now, I shall need to touch upon aspects of them later.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 would vary the Bill to make it clear that local authorities could eventually give money to people to pay for places in long-term residential accommodation. Amendment No. 31 is aimed at allowing the families of mentally handicapped people, particularly the more severely handicapped, to purchase a place in a village community, or other forms of residential care. In referring to the more severely handicapped, I am talking particularly of those with a low mental age who cannot be expected to take the decision as to where they wish to live. Your Lordships will appreciate that I am concentrating on the mentally handicapped not only as honorary president of RESCARE but because of the other interest I should declare as the father of a mentally handicapped daughter.
I have promised not the weary your Lordships by repeating all of the points mentioned in my earlier contributions. Most of them can he found in the booklet Made to Care written largely by my noble friend Lady Cox. with a foreword by my noble friend Lord Renton,

421
and published last April. Copies of that booklet are available in the Library or free from RESCARE via me. The booklet claims that village communities are care-effective, cost-effective and appear to be preferred by about half the families of mentally handicapped people. Yet they are being stifled by lack of support and negative ideology in the Department of Health, and in local authorities and social services. Choice between a village community and community care for one's relative very often simply does not exist. It has to be community care or nothing.
It is generally accepted, not always entirely fairly, that the old mental hospitals were bad news, but now the pendulum has swung too far in favour of integration at any price. These amendments will do something to alleviate that unsatisfactory state of affairs.
A number of questions have been put by me and my noble friends to the Government for a number of years. As yet, we have not received any satisfactory answers, or indeed any answers at all. Because these amendments are inspired by what we think the correct and obvious answers to our questions should be, I shall repeat some of them now in the hope of eliciting answers and sympathy from the Government for the amendments themselves. The first and most urgent question is whether the Government are absolutely confident that it is safe to continue their present policy of closing all the remaining long-stay mental hospitals and evicting all of their 16,000 more severely mentally handicapped residents into community care by the end of this year, 1996. In view of all the other difficulties surrounding community care at the moment, the Government cannot possibly have that confidence. Assuming that my noble friend cannot put her hand on her heart and assure us that these people will be properly looked after, can she explain why the Government do not order a stay of execution on the remaining long-stay hospitals, at least until the picture is clarified? Can she also explain why her department continues to refuse to put village communities back on the list of provision which the Government encourage local authorities to support? When answering the last question, with the greatest possible respect, can I ask her not to repeat that the Government believe that choice is working adequately at local level? It is absolutely clear that it is not. It is also clear that considerable suffering is being caused because local services and authorities are forcing into community care a growing number of people who cannot cope there and who cannot be coped with there.
I should like to repeat my request to my noble friend to explain why there is such a strong ideological bias in her department against village communities; and, indeed, against our most mentally handicapped people living in the countryside generally? Why is it all right for many of the landed aristocracy to avoid living in a town as though it were the plague, but not all right for my daughter to do the same? I fear that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege gave something of the game away as to her department's thinking on the question when, in reply to a Starred Question on 13th December, she
422
described some of the aspects of normal living which the rest of us take for granted. She referred, for example, to such things as,
"living in a normal house, in a normal street; going to the pub: going to the shops; and going to church".—[Official Report, 13/12/95; col. 1271.]
Why does normality have to include living within walking distance of a supermarket or shops or a pub or in a town at all? The answer is that of course it does not. If my noble friend agrees with the Government that choice should prevail in such matters, then she should look favourably upon my amendments.
I should just add that most people do not go to church, alas, and for mentally handicapped people it can he a far more spiritual experience to go to church in one of the excellent Camphill communities, for example, than in an almost empty inner-city church accompanied by social workers who may be well out of their depth.
I should also add that most village communities are not placed in deep country; they are near or even in towns, and all of them enjoy appropriate interaction with the local so-called "normal" community.
Once again, I should confirm that nothing I am saying should be taken as critical of community care when it works. Community care has enriched the lives of many handicapped people and, indeed, is often advanced and supported by RESCARE.
After our Second Reading debate on 7th December, I wrote to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege the next day to say that I could not accept what she said then in reply to the debate. She said that making direct payments for permanent or long-term residential care would simply add to the bureaucracy. Surely it would require less bureaucracy to pass funds direct to the family of a mentally handicapped person than it would to deal with some of the more mentally handicapped themselves and, indeed, with people suffering from other forms of more severe handicap. As I have not received an answer to that letter, I should he very grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer it now.
In conclusion, the amendments, if accepted, would do nothing to compel local authorities to support village communities or other forms of residential care. They, like the Bill itself, are merely enabling measures. But they might encourage local authorities and others to start changing their attitudes a little more in favour of our communities. They might help the pendulum to swing back towards the centre. In that hope, I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord made a persuasive and caring argument, hut we believe that it is wrong because, in a sense, it is in the wrong place. We are discussing a direct payments Bill and the whole concept of those payments actually came from disabled people who were looking for an alternative to full-time residential care. That is what the Bill is about. Direct payments are all about helping people to remain in their own homes and to live independently. Residential care is not about independent living.

423
We could have a very good debate about the weaknesses or strengths of community care and what has happened in the whole mental health field. However, for reasons which we can well understand, I believe that the noble Lord has introduced an argument which we would say—and I expect the Minister will say the same thing—is not in fact relevant to the Bill. We are discussing direct payments to disabled people to enable them to live independently in their own homes with the right level of care, and to give them the freedom to pay for the care package that they need.
The noble Lord has put forward an extremely good argument, but it is on a completely different subject. Indeed, what should happen to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped as regards how they should he accommodated—whether it be in the community or elsewhere—is a different debate. We have had such debates in the past and I should be happy to join in them again, but I do not believe that the Bill is intended to deal with the problem described by the noble Lord.
Baroness Flather: I now understand more clearly why my noble friend disagreed with me when I spoke against an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Obviously my noble friend is keen to widen the scope of the Bill much further than even the noble Baroness wished to do. I was trying to stop her going in that direction at that stage. Clearly we have almost got a new addition to the Bill itself. It would be good if we lived in an ideal world and could look at everything in connection with a single Bill. However, that is not practical. I hope that we can now continue and get on with the job in hand.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to express my support for Amendment No. 31 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I hope that Members of the Committee will tolerate my speaking to Amendment No. 46 which, in fact, builds upon what the noble Lord mentioned as being the content of Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 46 is aimed at allowing direct payments to be made to people who may be unable to administer their own financial affairs due to mental disorder. That is a particular concern of the Scottish Association for Mental Health. We are discussing an amendment to the Scottish part of the Bill, but I accept that it could be implemented across the entire United Kingdom. It has been tabled because the Bill seems to be aimed only at someone who can make his own arrangements and administer his own payments. The amendment would allow a simple procedure whereby a local authority would be able to appoint someone, who had volunteered, to administer the arrangements on behalf of the recipient.
The amendment is needed in Scotland, and probably in the United Kingdom, because the laws regarding decision-making for adults with mental disability, are, sadly, out of date. For a few, arrangements have been made through a Curator Bonis, a tutor dative or by power of attorney, but that is rare. At present, there are unimplemented proposals to improve the situation from the Scottish and English Law Commissions.
424
I can see that there is an argument that a person who cannot administer his own affairs would not benefit from direct payments. However, in response, I would say that such an argument misunderstands the situation of many people with dementia or learning difficulties. Although they may lack sophisticated financial understanding, they, their carers and their families may well be able to indicate what kind of help they would like and who they would wish to supply it. Through their carer or independent advocate, arrangements could be made for care which would he more in line with the person's needs and wishes than the local authority may be able to offer. There would need to be safeguards as, indeed, there would be in the case of anyone who was legally capable. The local authority would monitor the situation to confirm that direct payments were being used correctly.
Amendment No. 46 creates the opportunity for dignity to be accorded to the individual, his family and carers. It is a tragedy that the person has learning difficulties or dementia. Let us try to restrict the tragedy to that factor alone.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may, first, deal with Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 and then address my comments to Amendment No. 31. I understand that the noble Earl would wish me to reply only to Amendment No. 31 and not to Amendment No. 46, but perhaps he would care to clarify the position?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I did in fact speak to Amendment No. 46 simply because it has been grouped with Amendment No. 31.
Baroness Cumberlege: In that case, and with the leave of the Committee, I shall he most happy to address those two amendments.
Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set a limit to the period of residential accommodation. I have explained previously that the provision is intended to exclude the use of direct payments to pay for long-term residential care but to leave open the possibility that they may be used for temporary care for respite. I do not believe that any benefit from allowing direct payments to be used to purchase permanent residential care world outweigh the extra bureaucracy involved for the local authority and for the individual in making direct payments. Suitable arrangements already exist to provide users with a choice of residential care in the statutory direction on choice.
This is an area where we consider that it is desirable to lay down national parameters because this is a new and untried development. The regulations will be adjusted to keep them sensibly aligned with social security regulations.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised the issue of village communities. I agree with my noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that that goes somewhat wide of the Bill that we are discussing today. However, perhaps I may say that we intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 1(4) to exclude the use of direct payments to pay for permanent residential care. Suitable arrangements to

425
provide choice in permanent residential care are already in place and to make direct payments available for that purpose would simply add to the bureaucracy. We believe that that is the same for all client groups.
I know that my noble friend is frustrated that village communities are perhaps not being selected as a first choice for many severely handicapped and disabled people. I am afraid that my noble friend knows my answers very well in relation to the direction of choice and the complaints process which can be used to seek redress. He is also very much aware of the review that is taking place at the moment, which includes his informative booklet, Made to Care, which will be very useful. That review will be completed within six months.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 31 and 46.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness leaves Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, is there not another argument? Are they not outside the scope of the Long Title of the Bill which is:
"for community care services to make payments to persons in respect of their securing the provision of such services"?.
I do not believe that the amendments are within the Long Title.
Baroness Cumberlege: I suspect that that is right.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 31 and 46. The provision in Clause 1 that a local authority may make payments to a person in lieu of services he has been assessed as needing does not preclude that person nominating an agent to receive the payment and act on his behalf so long as the user retains ultimate responsibility. No amendment is therefore necessary to enable individuals to receive assistance from a third party.
The crucial difference is that the Bill as drafted places the responsibility for managing payments with the individual who needs community care services. Direct payments are intended to give the user more control over the way in which his care needs are met. He may well get help from his family or others in managing direct payments, but if they have the final say and not the user himself then direct payments will not achieve the goals of increasing the user's independence and control.
The amendments move away from responsibility lying solely with the individual concerned. They remove the need for the individual to consent that payments should be made to a third party.
As the Bill is intended to increase the power of individuals to make their own decisions, we feel that the amendments arc inappropriate. The Bill does not rule out individuals having support to make those decisions, but we do not feel that we should dilute the principle that the decisions are for the individual to make.
I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, can she say, in the case of a mentally handicapped person having a legal guardian to undertake all his business for
426
him, what would be the position of the legal guardian? Would the legal guardian be able to obtain a direct grant on behalf of the person for whom he is guardian?
Baroness Cumberlege: At this stage we do not suggest that people with a learning disability would qualify for direct payments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his support and for what he had to say about his amendment, Amendment No. 46, which fits very closely with what I propose in Amendment No. 31.
I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other Members of the Committee that I am indeed trying to widen the scope of the Bill. As I said earlier, I believe that it is rather a waste of time for your Lordships to go through the long process of passing a Bill of this kind, blocking off avenues which we may well come to need in a year or two but which we shall not be able to facilitate because primary legislation will then be required.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his sympathy. I hope that I may take him up on his offer that perhaps we may join in a more specific debate on village communities another day.
As for what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege had to say, I am afraid that I remain unconvinced about the extra bureaucratic costs which my amendments would cause. I do not believe that that statement can be justified.
In response to my noble friend's statement that suitable arrangements are in place for choice in the areas I talked about, I have to tell her again that they are not in place. That is why I am moving the amendments. In her winding-up speech at Second Reading, and again this evening, she mentioned the complaints process which is supposed to satisfy the hundreds of people who complain to RESCARE about not being given sufficient choice. As I asked in my letter of 8th December, I should he grateful if she would explain to us, in as public a way as possible, exactly what those complaints procedures are, who is using them and with what success, because I am told that they do not work at all.
As to the review which my noble friend mentioned, it is extremely frustrating that the review was announced last April, and only because we have put as much pressure as we can on her department are we now told that its first part will be ready in six months. That will he too late for many of the institutions that are being closed in the meantime. I urge my noble friend to go back to her department and see whether something cannot be done more speedily to avoid the disastrous effects which I fear will be visited on thousands of our most unfortunate people.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 26:
Page I, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Each local authority shall consult with users of direct payments for the purpose of preparing a plan for community care services under section 46 of the National Health Service Act 1990, and produce an annual report on the progress of direct payments schemes which includes monitoring of Independent Living Fund expenditure within that authority.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 26 is a three-part amendment. Perhaps I may explain the reason for each part.
First, the amendment seeks consultation on the development of the direct payments schemes. It is clear from the Policy Studies Institute 1994 study, which has been quoted, of existing indirect payments schemes that the schemes that work best are those which are constructed in consultation with disabled people. The report shows that such full consultation is successful because the outline and shape of the direct payments scheme will be most relevant if user groups can influence its design, cutting out unnecessary waste and procedures. Equally, that will allow for a tailormade scheme in each area, which will reflect local circumstances. Such schemes, constructed in a spirit of partnership, will be more robust and any problems that emerge will be resolved in a more co-operative manner. Therefore, we believe that full consultation is especially important in constructing new direct payments schemes, categories of client need and the like.
The second reason for the amendment is more oblique. It is not compulsory for local authorities to establish direct payments schemes. They are permissive. We have accepted the Minister's position in that respect for the time being. In the absence of a mandatory requirement on local authorities to establish direct payments schemes, we believe that it would help and encourage local authorities to develop such schemes if they were required to report to the Department of Health on how they were proceeding to meet the needs of disabled people and independent and community living. By asking them to report, it would allow us to map progress on a national basis. It would allow local social services committees to receive a progress report. It would allow disabled people to monitor how their local authority was proceeding in implementing the new legislation. I suggest that such monitoring should take place annually for about three years, after which there could be, if you like, a sunset review. The pump would have been primed for establishing such schemes.
The first reason for asking for progress reports is that consultation is a good thing. The second reason is to encourage local authorities to establish such schemes in the absence of those schemes being mandatory. A third is to monitor the use of funds provided to local authorities following the termination—the sunset clause—of the original ILF moneys of November 1992. At that time a sum of just under £100 million—usually referred to as the Independent Living Transfer—was transferred over three years to local authorities to assist severely disabled people. That period of transfer came
428
to an end in 1995–96, but the total amount has been included in the standard spending assessment for local authorities from 1996–97.
We would welcome the fact that any such report monitors the expenditure of this transferred fund in order to ensure that the money continues to be spent for the purposes for which it was originally intended, to ensure that there is clear accountability for the use of such funds and to secure, where appropriate, that such a transfer element might well provide the backbone of direct payment schemes.
We consider that the amendment would do three things: it would involve local people in constructing direct payment schemes; it would ensure that local authorities which may not have adopted such a scheme were encouraged to do so by being required to report on progress; and it would keep a monitoring eye on the Independent Living Transfer Fund. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the noble Baroness for that clear explanation. We agree that consulting users and carers and providing them with information are extremely important. The Government have consistently stressed that, and it is a major component of our community care development programme, Building Partnerships for Success.
We have said that we want to see local authorities involving users and carers, not just in discussing issues that affect them personally but in looking strategically at the way in which community care is implemented. That will apply equally to the way in which this direct payments legislation is implemented.
We issued last year revised guidance on the production of community care plans which stressed that users and carers need to be more fully engaged in drawing up plans and that plans need to reflect their views. The same guidance said that community care plans should include service developments and how they will be implemented. Again, that will of course cover direct payments once this legislation is in force.
We would expect local authorities to put information on direct payments into their community care charters, and I do not therefore see a need for a duty to publish a report.
I also see a problem with authorities being required to include information on Independent Living Fund expenditure, as they would not necessarily have this information available.
We have already tackled the issue of consultation and information and consider that the amendment is therefore unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to say a little more about the second part of the three-pronged push on the amendment. I take her first point, that disabled people will be involved in constructing the plans. However, we referred to monitoring and I asked for progress reports. I believe that the Minister said that local authorities are required to publish community care progress reports and that direct payments could—I do not think that she said "must"; it is the point I press—be included in that. If

429
the Minister assures me that guidance to local authorities will indicate that in the community care progress reports local authorities will be expected to address the issue of direct payments schemes, I shall be well content. Can the Minister give me that assurance?
Baroness Cumberlege: We go back to basic principles: that the direct payments legislation, if enacted, is part and parcel of the community care legislation of 1990. Where we look for progress reports from local authorities, I would consider direct payments as being part of those annual reports.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What happens if a local authority decides not to set up a direct payments scheme and does not have a third party or voluntary organisation doing so? Particular circumstances may well apply to that local authority. There may be good reason why that local authority is reluctant to set up such a scheme. It is clear from consultation that 90 per cent. of local authorities would set up such a scheme tomorrow if they considered it legal. However, for 10 per cent. there may be pressure of circumstances, lack of inhouse expertise or a wish to wait for a year or two and to piggy-back off other people's experience. I can conceive of circumstances in which a local authority may not set up a direct payments scheme with the speed that disabled people, voluntary organisations and indeed the Minister wish.
If local authorities are not required to set up the scheme—I accept that discretion for local authorities—and if they are not required to report on the moves that they are making towards such a scheme, how can we hope, expect and check that they will do so?
Baroness Cumberlege: At this moment, I believe that all Members of the Committee are in agreement that we should like to see the direct payments scheme introduced as widely as possible. However, as the noble Baroness said, there may be instances where it is not appropriate for the social services department to set up the scheme. I anticipate that when social services report through their community care charters, the impact of that will be seen on the remainder of their report. Therefore one can see the whole matter as a package.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is no point in pressing the amendment at present. However, I shall follow up the line that the Minister indicates. If what she says meets the purpose of the amendment, we shall be delighted. I am not persuaded that it does. But if necessary we shall return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 27:
Page I, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide for any amount of a cash payment to be calculated in such a way as will include all such costs as are reasonable to allow the person to act as a good employer.").
The noble Lord said: In the consultation paper on the Bill, paragraph 35 on support services states:
430
"Where people prefer to employ someone as a care assistant then of course they would take on responsibility as an employer for tax. National Insurance and other liabilities".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that payments can include elements for value added tax, national insurance contributions, tax, advertising and all the expenses of employing someone else.
The Independent Living Fund or social services indirect payment schemes have never had the same financial commitment enjoyed by equivalent services provided by the statutory services. I am advised that in Hampshire the cost of an hour of care attendant service is approximately twice as much as the cost of an equivalent indirect payment. There is no logic to this other than that disabled people accepted much lower payments when the schemes originated because they were only too willing to have the opportunity to break free from direct services.
By and large, one encounters similar overheads in managing one's own care as those experienced by a larger organisation in establishing similar provisions. If one is running a small business and hiring and maintaining staff, costs such as sickness and holiday pay, insurance, recruitment, accountant and possible payroll support, and employers' national insurance contributions must all be taken into account in addition to the hourly rate. In most cases the hourly rate and a small amount of holiday/sick pay is all that is presently offered to the user.
I understand from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People that some indirect payments users from around the country are finding the funding situation inadequate. I have two examples. I am sure that this applies possibly to the majority of users and not just those whom I quote. A user in Oxford states:
"I am funded for 24 hours, 7 days per week by the original ILF. This covers a basic salary for somebody working 6 days live in and one day covered by a local agency. It does not cover the National Insurance I pay as an employer or the costs of covering my live in worker's illness. I cannot give my full time worker a paid holiday and it certainly does not meet the cost of assistance over Christmas, Easter etc. when people expect time and a half. My other main difficulty concerns the recruitment of staff; this happens approximately four times a year and costs between £60 and £200. My needs would probably be met with a further £1500 a year. Much less than Social Service Homecare overheads, but over £1000 more than I can scrape from my personal finances!"
Another disabled person receiving grants in the Bognor Regis area writes:
"I have no spare money to meet the extra employment costs demanded by Tax and [national insurance contributions]. All I need is an extra £400 per year added to my care package to ensure my legal requirement as an employer is adhered to. The Authorities say I must find that out of my care component of the Disability Living Allowance, but that is more than taken up by my hidden disability costs of extra heating, lighting and food hills of my live in personal assistants. I have no means to meet these extra costs".
Those quotes reflect well the position of countless payment users up and down the country who feel quite distraught about being forced into bad employment practice due to inadequately calculated funding requirements. The reputation of the user is at stake and, of course, the quality of the provision will suffer if this employment costs issue is not addressed. If adequate

431
indirect payments are not made, the service user will he forced to compromise on whom they can recruit. Even worse, some may be forced, for survival reasons, to submit to the temptation to cut corners in the respect of poor fiscal and legal practices, such as perhaps being less than honest about tax and national insurance, having inadequate employers' insurance and public liability insurance policies and as regards matters to do with terms and conditions, hours of overtime, sick pay and so on. I am sure that the Government would want to encourage none of those things.
That would lead people into severe difficulties. Unfortunately, some beneficiaries of the original Independent Living Fund have already run into major problems with the Inland Revenue. The Disablement Income Group is currently involved with two of those cases where unpaid tax and national insurance contributions have run into several thousands of pounds. In both cases, neither tax nor national insurance contributions were deducted from the personal assistants' wages nor were employers' contributions paid. The Inland Revenue is now threatening action for recovery of outstanding amounts, in one case almost £11,000. Neither individual is in a position to pay.
There is also evidence of personal assistants being left in a vulnerable position because national insurance contributions were not being paid. Sometimes personal assistants have found that their contributions were adrift and that they did not qualify only on attempting to apply for a benefit during sickness. It is essential, in my view, that in calculating the amount of direct payment, local authorities should take into account those additional employment costs. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Carter: We are glad to support the amendment from this side of the Committee because we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has raised an important point. We have already touched on it once or twice in discussion on the previous amendments. It is important that the new responsibilities and liabilities of the recipient of direct payments must be recognised. We discussed earlier the effect of VAT and other costs which arise. I referred to the problem of the recipient thinking that the person he or she employs is self-employed. If the Inland Revenue turns round and says after a time that that person is not self-employed, the recipient will be liable for both the employer's and employee's proportion of tax and national insurance contributions.
The amendment is well worded to draw attention to the reasonable costs of a good employer. It also makes the point that regulations should provide for this rather than the consultation paper which only refers to guidance. There is nothing in the consultation paper on the matter. It states that advice is required from the local authority. The liabilities and responsibility for tax, national insurance and other liabilities,
"should be made clear by the local authority when offering people direct payments".
That is fair enough. It is good guidance to local authorities as regards the advice that they should give. But unless it is in regulations, it is not clear how it could
432
be enforced. It is an area at which the Government may have to look carefully to ensure that recipients of direct payments arc not penalised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to acid one point which has not been mentioned. There might he a problem with maternity leave if the carer became pregnant and had a baby. Perhaps local authorities should be encouraged to be flexible and take such matters and all extra payments into consideration.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the amendment which is based on common sense. If you are to provide someone with the ability to purchase or employ—that is, the carer and the support services—he must have this type of backing. Otherwise it is conceivable that funds will be insufficient, as has been pointed out—and practical examples ram the point home—or that he will run into legal problems. Unless one is prepared to fund the whole thing properly, as with all types of care outside institutions, there is a distinct danger that, with the best will in the world, what one has may well he worse than whatever it replaces.
Baroness Cumberlege: It will be for local authorities to determine the level of direct payments. Just as authorities decide on the nature and level of a community care service which someone receives, so it should be the local authority which decides on the level of the direct payment, the basis of its calculation and what it is meant to cover.
Not everyone who receives direct payments will wish to become an employer. Others may contract with an agency or secure services in some other way. We feel that to give local authorities a legal duty to include an allowance for a specific item which would not necessarily be relevant, would not be sensible. It would also fundamentally undermine local authorities' discretion in their dealings with individuals, which is at the heart of community care legislation.
I understand the points made by Members of the Committee in regard to having sufficient funds to cover the care needs of the individual. That is something which, of course, I endorse, but I believe that it has to be left to local authorities to decide what that level should be.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may reinforce the support for the amendment from these Benches. I had thought that the Minister might reply that the amendment was unnecessary because the cost of securing the provision of services—the wording in Clause I—might be interpreted as extending to all the costs, including those which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned. However, I am rather more perturbed now because the Minister seems to be suggesting that the cost mentioned in Clause 1 may not be the full cost.
Lord Swinfen: I too was somewhat disappointed by the reply. My noble friend seems to think that because a number of people in receipt of grants would be using agencies to provide staff, they would not need to worry about the on-costs. But the agencies would have to provide the national insurance contributions, the holiday

433
and sick pay and all the rest of it. They would have to include it in the charge that they made to the recipient of the grant. Therefore, fewer hours of care could be bought with the grant than might be provided by the local authority if the local authority which was not responsible for all the costs—particularly value added tax—were basing the grant on exactly what it was paying for the services. It might not necessarily be so in all cases but it may well he that the staff employed by the agencies were better trained and therefore entitled to higher rates of pay. All these matters need to be taken into account.
I hope that my noble friend will consider this between now and the next stage of the Bill. I intended this as a probing amendment; therefore I shall not be awkward to my noble friends at this hour of the evening and divide the Committee. However, we should return to this matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1996
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order be approved. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to the other order in my name, the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
The proposals before the House this evening seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on employers in their industries to finance their training activities, including grants schemes, and to fund the operating costs of the boards. Provision for this is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders before the House would give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
The proposals from each board include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case the proposals are exactly the same as those approved by both Houses last year. As in previous orders they are based on employers' payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour.
As required by the Industrial Training Act, both boards have provided for the exemption of small firms from the levy. The level at which this exemption takes effect is unchanged from last year and aims to strike the right balance between helping small firms to grow and giving them unfair commercial advantage. However, all firms need a skilled, competent workforce if they are to be competitive, and small, non-levy paying fines in these sectors are encouraged to take advantage of the services offered by the boards and to provide placement opportunities for trainees.
The Construction Industry Training Board proposes to raise a two-part levy: 0.25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of net expenditure by employers on labour-only sub-contracting. Employers with combined payroll and labour-only payments of less than £61,000 are exempt from paying the levy.
The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and proposes to raise a four-part levy: for head offices the rates are 0.4 per cent. of payroll and 0.5 per cent. of net expenditure by employers on labour-only sub-contracting. Those head offices employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt from paying the levy. The rates for sites are 1.5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of net expenditure by employers on labour-only sub-contracting. There is exemption for site employers with combined payroll and net labour-only payments of £75,000 or less. The higher rates on labour-only payments reflect the fact that employers using labour-only sub-contractors do not, in the main, play any active part in the training of the pool of skilled labour from which they recruit.
Both sets of proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2 per cent. with no provision for exempting employers who make their own training arrangements. In such cases the Act requires boards to demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry. I am satisfied that each of the boards has obtained that support.
The House will know that the two boards are the only two statutory industry training boards. They have been retained at the express wish of their industries and a crucial indicator of their effectiveness is the continuing level of support from employers.
The draft orders before the House will enable the two boards to carry out their training responsibilities in 1996, and I believe it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft- order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Henley.)
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these two orders. They were, of course, the subject of a lengthy debate and even, I believe, a vote in the other place. Much of that debate related to the quality, or rather the perceived lack of quality, of the Government's training schemes.

435
Although there is much to be said on that score, it is a subject for another debate and I do not intend to follow that path tonight.
Moreover, after lengthy debate in the other place, the orders were approved. The Minister will know that it is not the custom of this House to seek to oppose what has already been approved in the other place; nor do I think it would be a good idea to do so. However, there are one or two points that I should like to make.
The Minister will know, as I have said so on many previous occasions, that I was a supporter of industry training boards, and in particular of the CITB and EITB. I was not opposed to the industry board system being subject to review—some ITBs were no doubt no longer performing a useful function. But the fact that the training provided was industry-specific was a tremendous point in their favour. Both the EITB and the CITB in particular were doing a very good job indeed. I regret that the Government did not see fit to permit the continuation of the Engineering Industry Training Board in its previous set-up, except in relation to construction.
I also favour the levy system, although I regret the exclusion of small firms. I believe all employers in the industry should make a contribution to training. Incidentally, it would appear that the Federation of Master Builders shares this view. I was somewhat agreeably surprised to find that was the case. I had expected it to support the exclusion of small employers, but I believe that it has not done so.
The construction industry, unfortunately, appears to have been shedding labour recently. The looked-for upturn has not yet happened. That is no doubt because the housing market is still stagnant. Yet there is plainly a need for construction projects, most notably in housing. One would have expected local authorities to be leading the way in housing provision but, as we know, government policy has been to discourage local authorities from operating in this field, putting the emphasis on housing associations, which do not have the resources to provide the stimulus needed. I mention this because even very good training schemes founder if the participants can see no prospect of employment at the end of the training period. That is important in view of the much higher rate of unemployment among young males. As we all know, this can bring all kinds of social problems in its train. Government policy should be directed to ensuring that construction continues to offer employment to trained personnel—and employment, moreover, that appears to offer some degree of continuity and security. Trainee target numbers have, I am informed, been cut for two years. The reason is that there is simply not the work in the industry. I am informed by the CITB that public sector construction is grinding to a halt.
Safety is of particular concern in this industry. It is one of the industries in which there are inherent dangers, no matter what is done to try to diminish these. The CITB has an excellent record in health and safety matters. But there are still far too many accidents, some of them, unfortunately, fatal. I believe,
436
however, that the record would have been much worse without the CITB and the programmes that it has introduced. We must remember that an accident can mean a considerable cost to an employer.
I recall that when the EITB was in existence it introduced a number of programmes directed specifically at women. I was on one occasion invited to speak at a seminar arranged by the EITB on one of its courses for women. I was much impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of all concerned. The women were not all young. Many of them were attempting to rejoin the labour market after years spent looking after children. Some had switched, or wanted to switch, from other kinds of employment and relished the opportunity to acquire skills in a non-traditional area—at least, non-traditional so far as women were concerned. I do not know what happened to that kind of initiative with the demise of the EITB, but I like to think that courses of this kind are still available.
Finally, I am glad that the life of the CITB has apparently been extended by a further five years. Even so, I wonder why it was necessary to put a time limit on it at all. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. I understand that the excellent staff of the CITB have been much disturbed by the lack of continuity and security, and although they will welcome the five-year period, time goes very quickly and it will not be all that long before they start getting worried again. That is particularly true in the light of the philosophy of the Government in regard to training. As we know, they have been against industry specific statutory bodies and in favour of more diffuse local voluntary arrangements. The ITBs also involve unions, as the CITB still does. That is important, since unions have a strong commitment to training and in particular to health and safety. Therefore, I hope that the Government, in the light of experience, will see fit to drop the time limit altogether, so that the staff have some feeling of continuity and permanence.
Having made those points, however, we on this side of the House do not wish to oppose either of the orders which are before the House tonight.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the customarily clear way in which he explained these orders. As he said, in each case the proposals are the same as those approved by the House last year. It is good to know that, once again, they have the support of the employers involved as well as that of the respective boards.
Whatever attitude is taken to the grant and levy system generally, I am glad that the Government have deferred to the view of employers and other interested parties in the construction industry that it has special features in the greater use of contract labour, short-term working and general fluidity of the workforce which together mean that their co-ordination under the two boards is essential. Incidentally, I prefer the term "contribution" rather than "levy", for that would recognise that training should be regarded as an investment rather than just another cost.

437
In commenting briefly on the progress made by the hoards over the past year, I shall refer particularly to the last available report of the Engineering Construction Board covering the year 1994 but much the same considerations apply to the Construction Board. It is a pity that it has not been possible to discuss the ECITB report until more than a year after the end of 1994, but there it is.
A disappointing feature of the report is that in it the chief executive of the board was obliged to acknowledge that for the first time training for which general grant was payable was down in the year to August 1994. I ask the Minister whether he has any more up-to-date information available concerning training in the industry for which grant was payable. I have not given him notice of that question, and so I shall quite understand if he is unable to answer immediately.
It is pleasing to note that the training of two groups of apprentices recruited in 1994 was sufficiently encouraging to enable the Engineering Construction Board to market its national apprenticeship scheme during 1995 as one of the Government's modern apprenticeship schemes. I shall be interested to hear anything that the noble Lord can tell us as to the progress that has been made in the development of that project during its pilot year.
The number of employees in the construction industry as a whole continued to fall rather drastically in 1994. To judge from the figures emanating from the Building Employers Federation this morning, numbers are likely to fall still further in 1996. More than that, I understand from the Construction ITB that trainee target numbers for each of the next two years—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made some reference to this point—have had to be cut very heavily from 15,000 to 10,500. All that will, no doubt, add in time to the number of long-term unemployed.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will recall that last Wednesday the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked the Government what steps had been taken to implement two particular schemes aimed at assisting the long-term unemployed. Admirable though those schemes may be in encouraging employers to take on such people, as my noble friend Lady Seear said in the debate on the Address last November, unemployment will only be alleviated when we have the investment in training and education or learning that will enable people to acquire new skills of a kind that means that they can adapt successfully to changes in the labour market.
There may not be much that either of the training boards can now contribute to that end, but it helps to explain why my party is prepared, if necessary, to help finance the resources required for that purpose by an increase in taxation. I appreciate that this is not the occasion on which to develop that theme. For the moment, I am content, on behalf of my noble friends, to approve these orders.
Lord Henley: My Lords, let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that I believe that
438
there is a fairly fundamental philosophical division between us if he thinks that merely by increasing taxation we can deal with the scourge and problems of unemployment and long-term unemployment. We believe that the policies that we are pursuing have led to a considerable decline and fall in unemployment. It is now lower than that of virtually all our competitors and colleagues in the European Community and has been coming down much faster and further. The noble Lord will know that youth unemployment is considerably lower in this country than it is in, say, France or Germany; and, for that matter, long-term unemployment is not nearly the menace in this country that it can be in some others.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the two draft orders. He said that he would prefer the word "contribution" to the word "levy". I suspect that we should all like to rename taxes in one form or another, whether we call them contributions, taxes, levies or whatever, and try to make them sound more user friendly. But that does not get away from the fact that they still have to be paid. Therefore, one has to bear in mind that they are a burden, even if they are an investment, on the employers concerned. For that reason it is important that a degree of agreement is sought by the employers—I believe, that is what the two boards have done—in terms of getting these contributions, levies, taxes or whatever one calls them, set at the right level.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for raising one or two other points. He said that he would accept my writing to him. I shall take him up on that offer, if he will bear with me. I shall write to him in due course.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Again, I sense that she supported the two orders. I can assure her that her colleagues did not divide on these regulations in another place. Her colleague, Mr. Stephen Byers, made it quite clear when he spoke in the debate in another place, that it would not be appropriate to divide on the regulations. I understand that in the other place the debate went on to matters not entirely related to the regulations concerned.
I also note that, as usual—I say "as usual" because I believe that I debated these matters with the noble Baroness not last year (when my noble friend Lord Inglewood debated them with her) but the year before—the noble Baroness is in favour of such boards and would like to see many more of them. She rather regretted the review following the 1988 White Paper. Again, I note what the noble Baroness had to say but do not intend to rehearse the arguments that have been addressed on previous occasions.
The noble Baroness then addressed the question of whether small firms should be excluded. Again that points to a fairly fundamental difference of opinion between those on these Benches and the noble Baroness and her noble friends. We believe that small firms should be and must be protected from unnecessary administrative burdens in order to help them to thrive. The legislation governing the industrial

439
training boards requires exemption from the levy for small firms but does not prescribe the level at which it should be set. It is for the Government as they bring the orders before the House to judge whether the level proposed by the hoard is appropriate. In doing so, we shall try to ensure that a balance is truck between helping small firms and making sure that they are not given an unfair commercial advantage. That certainly does not mean that small firms will have no incentive to train. All employers, whether large or small and whether or not they need to pay the levy, need to ensure that they have a skilled and competent workforce if they are to be competitive. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that.
Perhaps I may move on to the question of the lifespan of the training boards. The noble Baroness regretted the fact that they had not been given a life lasting forever in the future. I can assure her that the review that the boards went through—the next review is in March 1998—involves nothing suspicious. It is merely the process that all non-departmental public bodies go through on a quinquennial basis. All have to be reviewed on that basis; first, to see whether the board or organisation is necessary and, secondly, if it is necessary, to see that it is fulfilling its role in the appropriate manner. It is nothing more nor less than that that the boards will go through at the appropriate time in 1998. It is simply part of the quinquennial review that all such bodies go through.
Lastly, in relation to women workers, I can assure the noble Baroness that both boards have equal opportunity policies and set targets for female participation in training. I hope that that assures the noble Baroness that they are alive to her anxieties regarding female participation in this industry.
Having dealt with a number of points raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and having noted their general support for the orders, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1996
7.32 p.m.
Lord Henley: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.32 to 8.10 p.m.]

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 28:
Page I, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Provision shall he made for local authorities to include schemes established for the purpose of making payments under subsection (1) above in their existing annual community care services report.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment continues the debate which took place just before the break with regard to reporting on progress made in direct payments schemes. The amendment suggests that reports arc made in the context of community care as a whole within each local authority; in other words, within its own community care services reports. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded the Committee, the scheme is permissive and therefore there is an important public interest in each community being informed of the extent of the scheme as well as on how the scheme is working.
Community care reports will go to social services committees. They act as a focus for monitoring and can be the subject of discussion among users and carers as to the service development to which the Minister referred before the break. Rather than a separate report on the matter, as was proposed in Amendment No. 26, it is important to see payments as part of the whole provision of community care. That is why I have suggested in the amendment that the community care services report should be the vehicle for reporting on the progress of payments. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: This seems to be a sensible proposal. The only point that occurs to me is that in the minority of authorities which do not have a direct payments scheme—there may be a few—the omission will become glaringly obvious because they will not he able to report on it.
Baroness Cumberlege: There is very little I want to add that I did not mention in the previous debate on this matter. On the generality of monitoring what social services departments are doing, the voluntary organisations are very good at that in an informal way. But I understand the issue concerning accountability and the formal mechanisms that are required. We expect social services departments to report to the Department of Health. We monitor them carefully arid, as our recent taskforce has shown, we keep a close eye on community care. But we do not think that anything further needs to be put on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall reread what the Minister had to say in the earlier debate. In moving the amendment, I should have said that in paragraph 32 of the consultation document the department says that it would expect local authorities to include information on the schemes in their community care plans and in local community care charters. It is perhaps a matter for seeing what is the response to the consultation on that point. Even if the Bill does not provide for regulations, the Government may decide that it would be a good

441
thing to provide for such regulations in response to that consultation. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 2, line leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("( ) An authority by whom a payment under subsection (1) above is made shall recover that payment if the person to whom it is made has not spent it on securing the provision of community care services which the authority has decided he needs.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I suggest that at the same time my Amendments Nos. 33 and 36 be discussed. These amendments are intended to enable the Committee to consider a matter which was brought to our attention by the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Powers in its first report of the current Session. I retired from that committee at the end of last Session, having been a member of it since it was created, so I did not scrutinise this Bill or participate in drawing up the report. Since the committee came into existence some three years ago the Government have given serious consideration to its recommendations and taken action on many of them. Since arriving from northern Scotland this afternoon I have seen the Government's memorandum from the Department of Health and I am glad to note that the Government are proposing to move amendments on this subject. This is the first opportunity to consider the report as it had not been issued at the time of Second Reading in December. That is the normal sequence. The scrutiny committee examines a Bill after First Reading but does not expect to be able to report by Second Reading. This Committee stage is therefore the earliest suitable time and in our Committee procedure discussion is normally based on amendments. My amendments are in that spirit probing.
The Bill leaves a great deal to be decided and carried out by regulations—in Clauses I and 4 for England and Wales and Scotland respectively. As the Bill is now formulated, the statutory instruments would all be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Noting that the system for payments is to be introduced step by step, the scrutiny committee was satisfied with the delegated powers proposed. However, the committee has suggested more thought on subsection (5), in which the aim is to recover money which has been misspent. Alternatives are proposed and the reasons are given in the following passage:
"The delegated power in subsection (5) is potentially very wide, and does not appear to he limited to the recovery of money which has been misused. Given the width of the power and the absence of any hint of limits on its use, there is a case for subjecting the delegated power in subsection (5) to affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance, and only thereafter to negative procedure".
That proposal for affirmative resolution procedure for the first statutory instrument and negative thereafter has been advocated by the scrutiny committee as a new and suitable process in certain circumstances. The Government have already adopted this procedure in at least one other Bill in the recent past. I personally have been attracted by it, especially where the provisions are in a new field. Once the
442
pattern has been set and accepted by Parliament, it should not he necessary for every subsequent instrument in that field to come automatically to the Floor of each House. The negative procedure should then suffice. I note that Amendment No. 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is also on that point.
My amendments are for England and Wales in the first part of the Bill. But, as I said earlier today, if the principle is accepted, further amendments for Scotland would he in order. The scrutiny committee also wonders whether the whole matter of misspent money should he dealt with in the Bill, in primary legislation, and sees the case for that; namely, that the clear principle that local authorities have a duty to recover the money should replace the present subsection (5). That is the purpose of my first amendment. It would be a change of some substance. I am sure that the Government will have considered this proposal for removing one of the delegated powers in the Bill.
My other two amendments provide for the alternative which has already been outlined by me: the affirmative resolution in the first instance. The welcome information in the Government's memorandum indicates that the Government have accepted that recommendation to include the provisions on this subject in the primary legislation—that is the second alternative suggested by the scrutiny committee—and that a government amendment will come forward, I presume, at Report stage. That would appear to meet the object of my amendment. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend this evening and also to examining the Government's amendment in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am in a little difficulty: I had originally grouped the subsequent Amendments Nos. 30 and 41 with Amendment No. 29 because I was concerned about the issue raised as regards the repayment of misspent moneys, as opposed to regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, developed his argument, it may be better if my noble friend Lord Carter responds to the issue of regulation and I shall flag up now and deal substantively with the next amendment, No. 30.
I was unhappy with the noble Lord's amendment. Although I am no great defender of regulation, nonetheless when one comes to the overpayment or misappropriation of moneys where it is not clear whether that is due to abuse, negligence, culpability or mismanagement, that is precisely the sort of area that should be left to local authority discretion informed by central government guidance, whether in the form of regulation or guidance. It seems to me that this amendment is far too rigid to he placed on the face of the Bill and it is simply inappropriate. If this were a substantive amendment and not a probing one, I would simply oppose it.
There are many circumstances, such as financial hardship, inexperience and others, where it would be quite wrong for the local authority to seek to recover those moneys. This is precisely the area where regulation and/or guidance is appropriate. Perhaps I may deal with the substantive issue in a moment and my

443
noble friend Lord Carter pick up and pursue some of the otherwise very well judged and helpful comments about regulation made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank the noble Baroness for saying that. I left for Scotland last Thursday night and, as I could not do anything this morning as regards grouping because I was at an airport trying to catch an aeroplane, I made it known that, so far as I was concerned, the noble Baroness's amendments could be grouped with mine. I was surprised to find this afternoon that they had not been. I am glad that she is ready to speak on them.
Lord Carter: As regards regulation-making, my noble friend has made: the point. I sometimes feel that parliamentary draftsmen have a standard clause which states that everything shall be negative and then they see what happens and what they can get away with. We have discussed this matter as regards many Bills, as the Minister will know.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has looked at this matter and it has made this proposal, which seems to be a sensible one. In principle we are not objecting to the idea of the affirmative resolution procedure the first time round and then afterwards the negative procedure. It is a new-ish procedure and it is an intelligent use of the regulation-making power. But that is only on the general point about the regulations. The substantive one as to whether they are appropriate for this particular issue of the recovery of debt will be dealt with when we come to Amendment No. 30.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the clause was designed for the recovery of money which has been misused, and with that I entirely agree. I have no argument with that whatsoever. But I prefer the wording that is on the face of the Bill at the moment instead of the wording of Amendment No. 29.
What is the position where the recipient of a grant for community care actually manages things so well that out of that money he can not only purchase the community care that the local authority considers that he needs, but is also able to purchase additional services? If he uses the money to go off to the Bahamas for a holiday, that is misuse and I entirely agree with the noble Lord. If the individual is a better manager than the local authority anticipates or better than the local authority itself, he should have the benefit of it, but I entirely agree that misused funds should be recovered.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord will well understand that, having lifted his drafting so comprehensively in my later amendment, I am attracted by the approach to regulation. As regards the recovery of moneys, I agree with both noble Lords. Provided that we can be satisfied that the local authority will have the power to recover money—and obviously that must be catered for—there will be many very different circumstances and probably more than we can envisage. They are matters of some sensitivity in some cases. It
444
will he far more appropriate for the matter to be left to the discretion of the local authority to decide how to exercise the power.
Baroness Cumberlege: As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, Amendment No. 29 seeks to implement the suggestion of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to,
"write into the bill the clear principle that local authorities have a duty to recover misspent money".
The Government have accepted that the power to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which local authorities may recover direct payments is unnecessary, and, as my noble friend has said, I intend to table an amendment to replace it with a general provision as the Committee suggested.
However, the Government do not accept that local authorities should have a duty to recover money which is misspent. To impose such a duty could force authorities to pursue trivial sums—a possibility which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Indeed, sometimes the sums expended could well he less than the cost of recovery. Giving them a power rather than a duty also gives authorities discretion to take into account hardship considerations when deciding whether to seek repayment.
There is little danger that local authorities will not require money to be repaid in genuine and substantial cases of misspending simply because they do not have a duty to do so. It is sufficient to give local authorities the power to recover the money. The government amendment will replace the regulatory power with a power enabling local authorities to recover funds where they are not satisfied that they have been spent properly.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 36 seek to implement the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Select Committee's less favoured suggestion of changing the way in which regulations are laid under subsection (5). The Government's proposed amendment will remove the delegated power, rendering this amendment unnecessary.
We believe, too, that Amendment No. 41 is also unnecessary. It seeks to enable local authorities to discontinue direct payments and reinstate services if the payments have been used improperly. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing that, since the payment of money in lieu of services is at the discretion of the local authority. Subject to what I have said, I hope that these amendments will be taken in a probing vein.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful for the comments which have been made. The Department of Health memorandum indicates that the Government intend to introduce provision into the Bill which will replace subsection (5). Therefore, my two later amendments which we have been discussing will not be necessary. I am glad to have spoken about them because that is a procedure which will he useful, as has proved on past occasions with other Bills.
As regards the drafting of Amendment No. 29, I am the first to accept that it may not be perfect. The Government are going to produce their version, which I

445
am sure will he much better. So I hope that any criticism which I detected of the wording of Amendment No. 29 will not arise in our debates at a later stage. If we accept the Government's proposed amendment at that later stage, then the affirmative resolution procedure will not he required for the purposes of subsection (5). We must therefore wait and see what the Government propose at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations") and insert ("where there is evidence that such a payment has been spent in such a way as does not meet the specified requirements of the original care package.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 41. The amendments revisit the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his amendment, Amendment No. 29, on regulations. The Minister answered that in part, but I think that it might be worth pushing this a little further because clearly we want to allay any fears that there may be in people's minds.
I do not think that anybody disputes that we should protect public moneys against abuse or even fraud. It is clear also that if the moneys are misspent and the needs of a disabled person not met, meaning that the local authority then has to provide services in lieu, that puts an unacceptable and unfair strain on local authority resources. However, we want this to be a power, not a duty. I believe that that is the Government's position also, and that it is analogous with a local authority's powers in relation to the recovery of debts. Local authority expenditure and the disbursement of payments is perfectly properly scrutinised by both internal and external audits so I do not think that any of us need have any doubt that a local authority will pursue the recovery of moneys where circumstances make that appropriate.
However, given that we are dealing with clients who will almost certainly be inexperienced at directly employing someone or who may be confused about some of their statutory obligations, I fear that there is room for a degree of misunderstanding and we should like local authority discretion then to operate. That will involve cases ranging from hardship to misinformation about the appropriate responsibilities. The tangle or rather the discussion which the Committee had earlier about who pays VAT and who does not is but a taste of some of the difficulties that may arise.
Another reason why we want there to be discretion—again, I would very much welcome what I am sure will be the comforting words of the Minister on this matter—is that we do not want there to be the impression that the direct payments package is so tight that there is no scope for what the Government in their consultation paper referred to as "flexibility" and "reasonableness". The client and the social worker together will draw up a care package and direct payments will be made.
446
Clearly, if needs change significantly and the client requires either more or less support, that care package and the direct payments must be reassessed.
However, it is also the case that a disabled person's needs may quite properly fluctuate modestly from week to week, fortnight to fortnight or month to month. That may be due to the person's state of health. If the disabled person has multiple sclerosis, he or she may move in and out of remission and may want, therefore, to spend more money one week on taxis whereas the next week he or she may want to spend more on help in the home because of being housebound. Direct payments were supposed to encourage exactly such flexibility and we do not want social workers to have a mistaken sense of probity with regard to public moneys or clients to be nervous that they may find themselves being prosecuted for misspending those moneys. We do not want such misapprehensions to be held.
As long as appropriate audit arrangements are in place, such as a separate bank account and records of receipts, that flexibility and the ability to veer between spending on taxis or on help in the home can be secured. Indeed, it is not only necessary, but desirable. It allows disabled people much more spontaneity about life, together with the ability to change their mind and to alter arrangements according to the weather, their health, appointments, work demands and personal needs. No one's life is the same each and every week—and certainly not a disabled person's life. We must therefore allow that departure from the specifications of the original care package where appropriate without either the social worker or the client feeling that that may take them into the territory of the recovery of moneys that have been misspent.
Finally, on Amendment No. 41, with which Amendment No. 30 is grouped, we are saying that where a local authority believes that payments have been abused, it may cease to make those payments and instead reinstate direct services. That is not only to protect public moneys—clearly, they must be protected—but to ensure flexibility where a client's condition or competence may have deteriorated or where the social worker suspects that there may be mishandling by a third party, perhaps a relative. The local authority may then intervene and stop direct payments in order to protect the client. We hope that the Minister will make the position clear either on the face of the Bill, by regulations or in guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that I have already covered some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, but perhaps I may reaffirm that we agree that there may be occasions when it would not be right to recover funds. We also agree that it is right to leave the question of when to seek recovery to the discretion of the local authorities. That is why we intend to table an amendment to give a general provision allowing local authorities to recover funds if they are not satisfied that they have been spent properly.

447
I do not think that It can add anything further except that I have already spoken to Amendment No. 41, which we feel is unnecessary also.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that answer and am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 32 is grouped with Amendment No. 34 which stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and with Amendment No. 47 which stands in my name. Amendment No. 47 is my substantive amendment and seeks to replace the power to make regulations by statutory instrument subject to annulment with an obligation to make regulations which in the first instance are subject to the affirmative procedure.
We started this afternoon with a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the consultation paper having been received by the voluntary organisations late on Friday. It is, of course, right that that consultation should be conducted before the regulations are laid but, as many noble Lords have pointed out, there is a real difficulty in considering the Bill without the regulations because so much is to be dealt with by regulation. It would be far more satisfactory if we had the benefit of the regulations before considering the Bill. That would undoubtedly have shortened today's proceedings.
It seems to me that regulations which deal with a new subject area should be subject to the affirmative procedure in the first instance and thereafter to the negative resolution procedure. That would strike a good balance, requiring the House to devote its attention to those regulations the first time round, but not taking up parliamentary time thereafter unless that was felt to be necessary. The working of this Bill will depend on the regulations and it is therefore particularly important that those regulations be fully scrutinised. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I intervene solely for clarification because we have already gone over this ground. Can the Minister confirm that she will table an amendment to deal with the point about debt recovery in subsection (5) and a general amendment along the lines of that proposed by both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in respect of regulations being subject to the affirmative procedure the first time round and the negative resolution procedure thereafter? As I understand it, that is the Government's intention. The Government accept the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to change Clause 1(7) to cover the provisions of Amendment No. 47. Is that right?
Baroness Cumberlege: Not quite, but perhaps the noble Lord will listen to what I have to say. I have already given—and I now repeat—the assurance that we shall take into account the views expressed in this debate in making our decision on the content of the
448
regulations. We will also he taking into account the responses to the major consultation exercises that we have initiated on the content of the regulations.
The main drawback to the proposed amendments is that they require the Government of the day to find parliamentary time every time they wish to amend, in however minor a fashion, one of the regulations. It is not always easy to find parliamentary time, especially if there is some reason why amendments need to he made at a particular time or within a particular timescale. I sense that Members of the Committee have already heard these arguments. These amendments raise the possibility of amendments to regulations being delayed, even though everyone might agree that the amendments were desirable, because of constraints on parliamentary time. The amendment would also be inconsistent with existing legislation in the community care field, where Members have been content to allow negative resolution regulations.
The question of the appropriateness of the Government's proposals on secondary legislation was considered by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We have accepted its recommendation on Clause 1(5) but it has made no recommendation on the rest of the proposed regulatory powers. It was content with our proposal that negative resolution regulations should be made. That is the position.
Baroness Hamwee: In using the term "content" I do not refer to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee but to Members of the Committee. From time to time we express ourselves to be content when we are, in fact, resigned rather than content.
One of the normal responses to the Minister's argument is that on important subject areas Members can be trusted not to be frivolous. Therefore, if amendments to regulations are not required, parliamentary time will not be taken. As the Minister sensed that Members of the Committee may have heard her argument before, I sense that they may have heard that one too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report evaluating the working of this Act within three years of the date of its commencement.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a report of an evaluation of the provisions of the Act within three years of the date of its commencement. We have discussed the matter before in respect of other Bills. In essence, this is a new scheme. It expands an existing scheme but it is different in the way in which it will work as a general enabling provision. A number of detailed aspects of policy are to he dealt with in regulations.
We understand the point about issuing guidance and we now have the consultation paper. The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 provides that:

449
"Local authorities shall, in the exercise of their social services functions, including the exercise of any discretion conferred by any relevant enactment, act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State".
It is also understood that the department will issue more general practice guidance about how local authorities may wish to establish their local schemes.
That is a new approach. There will be some risks which will have to be monitored, as mentioned in the consultation paper, and there will be a need for audit trails. I referred earlier to the patchwork quilt that will develop because different authorities will have different levels of skill, enthusiasm or whatever in establishing the schemes. We believe that there is a clear need for central monitoring of the sharing of experience. The social services inspector will have a crucial role to play in the dissemination of information as well as reviewing the progress of the Act.
This is a probing amendment and we are not certain about the provision, three years. However, the idea is that the Secretary of State should be able to report on a regular basis, we suggest within three years of the date of the commencement of the Act, on how it is working. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Carter, sees beauty in a patchwork quilt or whether he sees it as a disadvantage. The Government would undoubtedly be monitoring the implementation of direct payments and reporting to Parliament when appropriate. At this stage we are content to make a commitment that we will give Parliament a report on the workings of the Act within three years of commencement but we do not see that it is necessary to write it into the Bill.
Lord Carter: Is that a concession or not?
Baroness Cumberlege: It is a patchwork quilt.
Lord Carter: I am overwhelmed. It is a commitment in Hansard but it is not on the face of the Bill. It is half a loaf and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the matters to be taken into account and the manner in which an authority is to discharge its functions under this Act and before issuing such guidance the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Minister will think that this amendment is another apple pie, motherhood and American patchwork quilt. It recognises that on the one hand some local authorities and disabled people have extensive knowledge of direct payments, independent living and so forth. They may know, for example, the advantages and
450
disadvantages of purchasing through an agency, of employing someone directly or of working through a local voluntary agency. They will also know about the need, for example, of support packages, of appropriate methods of monitoring, of training and the like. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge tucked away within local authorities, voluntary organisations and, above all, with the ILF.
However, other local authorities may not have such experience. They and disabled people in their areas will be coming new to direct payments. I hope that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary because she will introduce the provision in any event but it will simply authorise the Secretary of State to issue guidance and to consult those best informed when issuing that guidance, on the ground that it constitutes the diffusion of useful knowledge. The Victorians would have been proud of her. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness is right, in that we believe that the amendment is not necessary. It seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance on the operation of direct payments. Clause 3(3) already gives him this power by adding direct payments to the list of social services functions in Schedule I to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Sections 7 and 7A of that Act authorise the Secretary of State to issue guidance and directions in relation to local authorities' exercise of their social services functions. It is normal practice to consult interested parties in the preparation of community care guidance, and we intend to consult on the proposed guidance on the Bill. We do not support the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that the Government will be issuing such guidance as opposed to saying that the power to issue such guidance is unnecessary?
Baroness Cumberlege: We believe it to be unnecessary because we believe that already there are powers that the Secretary of State can use within the Local Authority Social Services Act.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to come back. I understand that the Secretary of State does not need powers to issue guidance. The question is: does the Secretary of State intend to issue such guidance?
Baroness Cumberlege: We understood that the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on guidance. At the moment, it is normal practice to consult but, with regard to the Government issuing guidance under Section 7, the answer is in the affirmative. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would be grateful if the Minister would write to me in order to clear up the matter. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Relationship with other functions]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("they are satisfied that").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. I fear that amendments which looked fairly sensible in the light of day when drafted may appear to be nitpicking at this hour of the night. I shall deal with them quickly.
Clause 2 deals with a local authority's obligations, or relief from obligations, to provide community care in respect of services for which payments are made. I wondered whether the words "they are satisfied that" in subsection (2) gave a more subjective slant than was satisfactory. In other words, is there a sufficient degree of objectivity in the local authority's consideration as to whether or not the service is required? How reasonable are they to be in judging their own satisfaction?
The second amendment seeks to replace the words "will be met by virtue of", simply because I am slightly uncomfortable about seeing those words in legislation. It is possible that "by" is better. I was perhaps over-energetic in the Christmas break and came up with the words "has been agreed to be acquired by". I impertinently question the terminology of the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: Clause 2 is in the Bill to ensure that a local authority does not have to pay twice to meet the same needs, once by direct payments and again by providing services. Subsection (2) ensures that where someone receives direct payments but their needs are not met, for whatever reason, the local authority has a responsibility to step in and arrange the relevant services. This provision ensures that no-one is left without the services that the authority has said that they should have. These amendments remove that safety net. If the recipient has agreed to use the payments to acquire the service that he or she has been assessed as needing, the local authority is no longer under any obligation with regard to those needs. So, if that person is unable to acquire those services, for whatever reason, whether or not they bear any responsibility for that fact, the local authority will no longer have any responsibility to help out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has expressed concern about people who fail to use their direct payments properly, leaving the local authority to pay twice. Individuals should make reasonable arrangements to ensure that their needs are met using direct payments, and that they have adequate back-up in emergencies, such as when a personal assistant falls sick. But if their needs are not met, under the Bill as drafted the local authority will have a responsibility to step in. If the local authority is asked to step in it may well decide to look again at whether the individual can manage the direct payments scheme and consider discontinuing direct payments. The situation that the noble Baroness fears should not continue for long. Either the authority will discontinue payments or the crisis will pass. If the
452
reason why the user's needs are not met is that he or she has misspent the payments the local authority will have the power to recover that money, so the local authority will not be paying twice. If that is not the case, in rare circumstances the local authority may indeed find itself paying twice for the same service. For example, the payments recipient's personal assistant may fall sick, and the agency which they have contracted to provide cover is unable to provide someone. The local authority will have to step in, but that may happen equally where one of its own staff falls sick and the local authority has to pay someone to cover for them.
Clause 2 as it stands is essential to make direct payments work. To change it to address this one small risk opens up the much greater and more serious risk of leaving people with no way of securing the services they need. Therefore, we do not support this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure whether the Minister has answered the first amendment, but I will read her response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Section 29(6)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 shall be repealed.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 42 is a probing amendment to discover why the Government have not taken the opportunity under this Bill to repeal Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 which up until now has made direct payments illegal. The Disabled Persons Services Bill, which was introduced in 1993 by the noble Lord, Lord McColl (whom we are delighted to see is here) sought to repeal this part of the 1948 Act in its first clause.
Subsequent clauses of this Bill refer back to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, but the definitions that they employ are founded on Section 29 of the 1948 Act. As one of the organisations has said, all roads lead back to that section. Why have the Government not unambiguously repealed it? We worry that perhaps a power may remain to make an assessment of needs and definitions contestable and therefore leave a local authority at risk of legal action. Perhaps Ihe Minister can allay our fears. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: Section 29(6)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 does not conflict with this Bill. It is neither necessary or desirable for it to be repealed. Section 29(6)(a) would not prevent direct payments under this Bill being used to fulfil the duties created in Section 29. Section 29(6)(a) merely states that the earlier parts of Section 29 do not authorise or require the payment of money. That authorisation will be given, in certain circumstances, by this Bill.

453
To repeal Section 29(6)(a) will open the way for local authorities to pay money to people in much wider circumstances than are envisaged by this Bill. Indeed, it would allow money to be paid out in any circumstances, provided the purpose was to promote the welfare of someone covered by Section 29. The money would not need to be linked to the provision of any service. The purpose of direct payments is not to give people handouts. We must retain Section 29(6)(a) so that money can be paid out only in the circumstances and with the safeguards specified in the Bill. Therefore, we do not support this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The more the Minister spoke, the more I thought what a good idea it was to repeal this section of the 1948 Act and increase the discretion of local authorities overnight. But I understand the force of the Government's argument. Unless I am advised to the contrary, we would not wish to return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
REGULATION OF INDEPENDENT DOMICILIARY SERVICES
(" . Where—

(a) a person in receipt of direct payments under section 1(1) above has chosen to purchase independent domiciliary care; and

(b) the Secretary of State has consulted with such persons as appear to him to be concerned,

he shall by order introduce a scheme for the regulation of the provision of such services.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to insure against the exploitation of disabled people by unscrupulous agencies which provide care, and to maintain general high standards of care. I believe we can all agree there is a strong possibility that service users who opt for the direct provision of service will require independent care providers, although we know that a number will choose to find their paid help by a variety of other means. The domiciliary care industry is at present small and is expanding rapidly. There is no requirement for independent care providers to register with local authority social services departments, nor do local authorities have the right to inspect such services. However, it is in everyone's interest, particularly those of the users of the service, that there be care standards for all such providers. To have a basic standard of registration assists new providers who wish to enter the market and will protect the users of the service.
We anticipate that direct payments may generate many new entrants to the market. This means that these new organisations will need the same regulation as that for which there has been a call for some time, as the Minister will know. We believe that this protection is vital. Authorities will find it hard to expand the operation of direct payment schemes unless something similar to what is proposed in the amendment is in place.
We know that the independent sector could gain by voluntarily registering with a local authority, but we do not feel that that is enough, especially where a single purchaser of a service has to rely on advertisement, word of mouth or canvassing for trade. We believe that there should he a requirement to ensure a basic minimum standard for all suppliers; that is, those to local authorities and those to private households. That would ensure that they were capable of providing a reasonable service and that the suppliers throughout the range were fit for the purpose.
We all want the Bill to succeed. Indeed, the worst that could happen is for a number of scandals to arise in the independent sector. The proposed amendment is perhaps not the best or perfect way to achieve that aim, but it is a probing amendment to elicit the views of the Government and to ascertain whether they would like to reconsider the matter and perhaps return at a later stage with their own amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I want to give the strongest support to the amendment. Of course, the issue has been raised before, but surely the case is greatly strengthened with the introduction of the Bill. I say that because the individuals making the purchases for themselves are at the mercy of the market and many of them will not have great opportunities to explore the details of the organisations with which they propose to deal. Such people are particularly vulnerable in that position; indeed, they can easily be taken for a ride and may find it very difficult to deal with irregularities which may arise in certain cases.
I should declare an interest in the matter as President of the Institute of Domiciliary Carers. I know that for a number of years now members of that organisation have been extremely anxious that there should be proper regulation. The good enterprises—and there are many of them in the private sector—on which we shall rely very heavily for making the scheme work also want to see regulation and registration so that the cowboys can be excluded.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we only need a few really bad scandals—and there will be some rotten apples in this particular barrel, as in the case of all other barrels—for the whole scheme to be discredited. This is the time for the Government to think again about their determination, as in the past, to rely solely upon voluntary registration. They should consider introducing a proper scheme.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, should declare an interest in the amendment, as the John Groom Association for Disabled People for whom I work already runs two agencies which provide domiciliary care for physically disabled people. I know that the association experiences difficulty in finding suitable carers to work in people's private homes. It is a matter of ensuring that one has the right standard of worker, as regards both care and honesty; and, indeed, that applies in the way in which the agency operates. One must ensure that it does its

455
level best as an agency to provide satisfactory staffing for people in their homes.
I strongly support Ihe amendment. The wording may not he ideal, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it on hoard and, if she does not accept it, perhaps she will bring forward an amendment of her own at a later stage.
Baroness Cumberlege: I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the Committee. Indeed, the Committee may he aware that a major review is currently taking place of the way in which social services are regulated and inspected. Part of the remit of that review is to consider whether non-residential services should be subject to regulation. The amendment seeks to introduce regulation of independent provision in the context of direct payments. We consider that it would be jumping the gun to introduce regulation in that way while the whole subject is being reviewed. We do not know what the outcome of the review will he and whether or not it recommends that we regulate non-residential care. Once we know the outcome of the review, we shall then consider its implications for direct payments.
There are already safeguards for direct payments recipients. No one will be forced to take on a direct payment; if an individual is concerned that he will not be able—even with help—to manage, then he does not have to accept a direct payment. Also, Clause 2 of the Bill means that if someone is unable to secure the services for which the direct payments are given, it will he the local authority's responsibility to arrange those services. So people should not find themselves without the care which the authority has said that they should have. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.
Lord Carter: The Minister's response is a little disappointing. The noble Baroness referred to the major review of both regulation and inspection, but could she give the Committee some idea of when that might he reported? Further, can she say when the review will he concluded and what the procedure will he; for example, will there be a public report, or how will it he handled?
Baroness Cumberlege: If I think terribly deeply, I believe that I can dredge my mind and produce more information. But at this very moment I cannot quite remember who is responsible. I believe that someone called Burgner is chairing the committee. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very clear reply. I entirely sympathise with the way that she feels. Indeed, we are all glad to see the Minister back in her place and no doubt it has been a most tiring day for her. I certainly do not wish to press the matter this evening. Perhaps we may talk about it between this and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Direct payments]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  Crown Copyright
  Crown Copyright
  Royal Parks Agency: Consultancy Contracts
  Royal Parks Agency: Consultancy Contracts
  Asylum Seekers: Support Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Support Costs