Sitting of 16 July 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BELFAST CHARITABLE SOCIETY BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 18 July.

ORDER OF BUSINESS
Madam Speaker: I have a short announcement about today's Opposition business. I understand that it is intended that the motions should be dealt with in the following order: the first debate will be on Ministry of Defence housing; and the second debate will be on energy policy. They will not be taken in the order that is shown on today's Order Paper.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Nurses (Recruitment)
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts his Department is making to recruit nurses to the NHS. [35782]
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the supply of nursing students. [35783]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My Department continues to promote a range of initiatives designed to attract suitable, high-calibre recruits to the nursing profession.
    Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State must recognise that there is a severe shortage of nurses. Does he recall that, in 1983, 37,000 nurses qualified? His Department predicts that in 1997–98, only 9,000 nurses are likely to qualify. Is that not a disgrace, given the pressure that it puts on nurses in the national health service? Why did he not take notice of the Royal College of Nursing's recommendation two years ago when it warned him of the shortage?
    Mr. Dorrell: First, what I take notice of on the question whether there is a shortage of nurses is the independent
    926
    review body, which examined the matter and published its report earlier this year, together with the finding that there was not a generalised shortage of nursing staff in the NHS, although there are localised shortages of nurses with particular skills. The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted are wrong. It is not true that 35,000, or even 37,000, nurses qualified each year in the 1980s. The figure for nurses going into basic training in the 1980s oscillated around 15,000 a year—a figure to which we are returning in the commissions that we are planning for this year.
    Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister acknowledge that the drop in nursing student numbers, combined with increased demand, has caused nursing shortages? Is there any evidence that the 14 per cent. increase in commissioning of training places will be sufficient to meet future demand for nurses?
    Mr. Dorrell: I hoped that the Labour party would welcome last year's 8 per cent. increase in the number of nurses going into basic training. This year, there is a further 14 per cent. increase in the number of basic training commissions. That takes us back, as I told the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), to roughly the same level of new commissions for basic nurse training as existed in the 1980s. Since then, there has been a dramatic improvement in nurse training because of the introduction of Project 2000, which has led to a reduction in the number of training nurses who drop out of training because they find it unsatisfactory.
    Sir Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that NHS hospitals can provide not only refresher courses but sufficiently flexible terms and conditions for nurses to encourage the return to the NHS of qualified nurses who may have left to start families and who are now able and willing to give more time to nursing?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. If we are to ensure that we have the skilled people we need to deliver modern health care, we must of course have a proper level of training, but we must also ensure that NHS trusts are good employers. My hon. Friend suggests some important ways in which we can ensure that we have a well-motivated, fully trained work force. The moves that the Government are making on more locally determined terms for nurses' employment are an important enabling step down the road that he rightly points out.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the number of nurses who are now working in GP practices that are going in for primary care—a move that takes the strain off hospitals?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I can certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the huge growth in primary care nursing over the past 10 years. The number of practice nurses working in primary care 10 years ago was just under 2,000, but it is now 9,000. That is a fourfold increase in the nursing profession's commitment to primary care, which—as my hon. Friend rightly points out—is an important part of the health service.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Whatever the recruitment figures may have been last year, does the Secretary of State admit

    927
    that, this year, there has been a triple blow to the morale of nurses in the health service? First, there was an independent recommendation on nurses' pay, to which the Government responded by giving nurses a pay rise below the rate of inflation. Secondly, huge amounts of time and money have been taken out of the health service by negotiating settlements on a local level. Out of 500 trusts, fewer than 200 have yet made offers. Thirdly, last week, although the Government recommended restraint to the House, they recommended that hon. Members vote a pay rise for themselves that is greater than the rise that they recommended for nurses. Nurses' morale is going down daily. What will the Secretary of State do to recover it—or is he absolutely oblivious to the problem?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every one of the points that he made. The Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body made a specific recommendation, which the Government accepted in full and are implementing. It is not true to say that the Government have introduced a nurses' pay settlement that is below the rate of inflation. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the independent review body that there should be locally determined pay for nurses, with a 2 per cent. floor to ensure that every nurse gets a basic minimum increase.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall the days of that nurse of all nurses, the matron? Will he advocate the return of the matron to hospitals when it is possible and appropriate?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of professional leadership in the nursing profession, and the matron is one element that, in some trusts, has been found to be a means of achieving it. The most direct answer to the questions of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is to remind them and the House that, since 1979, nurses' pay has risen by more than 70 per cent. in real terms. That reflects both the commitment to nursing that my hon. Friend seeks and the commitment to proper pay for which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey argues.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State now accept that a real crisis is facing nursing in Britain? Will he explain to the House why nurses' morale has slumped, why nurse recruitment has collapsed and why the Government are still spending more new money on bureaucracy than they are on nurses? Will he also tell the House why uncertainty in the workplace is driving more NHS nurses away from providing valuable services? Today, will he announce that he will launch a national recruitment campaign to tackle the problem? Will he initiate talks with the Royal College of Nursing and nursing unions about the immediate crisis? Will he stop squandering the most precious asset of the NHS—its human resources? Nurses deserve better from the Government, and surely they should be getting some action from the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has to square his rhetoric with reality. He talks about declining recruitment in nursing. In 1994–95, the figure for recruitment into nurse training was 11,400 commissions; this year, there
    928
    are 14,300 commissions. I defy the hon. Gentleman to square an increase from 11,400 to 14,300 with his rhetoric about declining recruitment. His rhetoric is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

    Health Authorities (Market Testing)
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on market testing by health authorities. [35784]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Market testing by trusts has proved very successful in generating savings for the national health service. Approximately £1 billion has been saved since it started. Health authorities are increasingly using the same techniques, although the available alternative would normally be an NHS trust.
    Mr. Brown: Can my hon. Friend confirm that South Humber health authority intends to submit the ambulance service to market testing? While I accept and acknowledge that savings can be made, will he confirm that the health authority has no preferred option until the Humberside ambulance service has had an opportunity to ensure that its service is tested so that the benefits so far obtained can be acknowledged by the health authority?
    Mr. Horam: I can confirm that there is no preferred option. I am concerned to ensure that, in such instances, there is absolutely fair play. I have gone into those and other instances carefully. Accusations of unfair play are usually made on behalf of the bidder, not the existing provider. I assure my hon. Friend that the regional office will ensure that there is fair play in the case that he mentioned.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that a consequence of market testing at Hillingdon hospital in west London is that 54 cleaners, some of whom have worked there for 30 years, have been dismissed by the Pall Mall Services Group for refusing to take a pay cut of £35 a week? Does he not think that market testing is responsible for poverty wages for loyal workers within the national health service? Should not those 54 cleaners be reinstated on national health service conditions and repaid for the whole period for which they have been out of work because of the Pall Mall group's determination to make profits at the expense of loyal workers in the NHS?
    Mr. Horam: On the contrary, the Pall Mall group, which adequately resources all the services that it provides, gives the workers in question rates that are above the nearest comparator—Heathrow. In the circumstances, they are well paid for the work that they do. In addition, they all received a lump sum to do away with the work restraints that they were putting on the service.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the money saved through market testing is in addition to the extra money that the Government have made available for the health service? Will he also confirm that the Opposition have pledged not a penny of additional money for the health service?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The £1 billion that has been saved since 1983 as a result of

    929
    successful market testing, which has not only saved money but improved quality in many cases, should be set against the paltry £100 million which the Opposition allege that they could save and thereby transform the health service. They should make it plain what we would lose through that "efficiency" if ever there were a Labour Government, not what they would hope to gain.

    NHS Administrative Costs
    Mr. Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of health authorities to discuss administrative costs. [35785]
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS. [35787]
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about administrative costs in the NHS. [35795]
    Mr. Dorrell: Our programme to streamline NHS management will release £300 million for patient care over the two years ending next March.
    Mr. Trickett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the internal market has proved to be a bureaucratic nightmare, which the British Medical Association estimates costs £1.7 billion a year? Will he confirm that, since the baseline of 1989, 20,000 new managers have been put in post at the cost of 50,000 nurses? Is he aware that the cost of that additional bureaucracy to the people of Hemsworth is £2.6 million? The people of Hems worth want not pen pushers but nurses and better clinical care.
    Mr. Dorrell: Both the statistics that the hon. Gentleman quotes, although much beloved of Labour Front-Bench Members, are simply wrong. First, the hon. Gentleman says that there are 20,000 new senior managers. As the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) knows well, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that is a new classification, which was introduced in the mid-1980s. If Labour Members really believe that there was no senior manager in the health service before 1985, they are in a tiny minority. It is clearly absurd. The 20,000 new senior managers is a nonsense statistic, and the hon. Lady knows it. Secondly, the only way in which the hon. Lady can concoct the statistic of 50,000 fewer nurses is by including trainees in 1984 and excluding them in 1994. If one takes honest figures over those 10 years, the figure is not 50,000 fewer, but 20,000 more nurses.
    Ms Quin: Given what the Secretary of State has said, why does he think that the BMA and others are so strongly critical of the spiralling costs of administration and transaction? Can he share with me the anger that my constituents feel when they see patient services such as urology services under threat in the local hospital, and when valued local facilities are in danger of being transferred to less convenient neighbouring hospitals? What does he have to say to my constituents about that?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have two things to say to the hon. Lady and her constituents about administrative costs in the health service. First, those costs have grown because, as
    930
    the hon Lady's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—acknowledged, the traditional NHS was undermanaged. Secondly, let us consider how much they have grown. The numbers of administration and clerical staff in the health service have increased by 22 per cent. in 10 years. To put that in perspective, the numbers of medical and dental staff in the health service are up by 21 per cent.—almost the same percentage in the same period. The numbers of professional and technical staff of the health service have increased in the same period by 28 per cent. During that period of growth of investment in management, there has been a 41 per cent. increase in patient treatments in the health service. That is the context that the hon. Lady should point out to her constituents.
    Mr. Hughes: When will the Secretary of State recognise that the NHS is now suffering from the disease of bureaucracy, and that its complications include waste and secrecy? For instance, in Gwent, a lady manager's employment was terminated and she received £35,000 in compensation, but a few days later she was re-engaged, at a salary of £39,000 per annum. Surely such money would be better spent on more, and better-paid, nurses and on re-opening the wards that have been closed in recent years?
    Mr. Dorrell: The problem that the Labour party faces in talking about management and administration costs in the health service is that Labour Members voted against £100 million of administrative savings in the health service when they opposed the abolition of regional health authorities. The hon. Member for Peckham has offered the population a recantation for a mistaken vote on the regional health authorities. She recognises that Labour Members made a mistake in not taking that £100 million and she is now on the verge of apologising to the electorate for their failure to take a £100 million saving that was available.
    The Government are well ahead of the hon. Member for Peckham. Not only have we taken that £100 million, but we have put in place clear plans to deliver an additional £200 million—£300 million of administrative savings. The hon. Lady offers a paltry £100 million, which she opposed when the opportunity presented itself.
    Mrs. Roe: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from Labour Front Benchers regarding his 5 per cent. cut in NHS administration costs, which are already amounting to about £140 million? Does he know whether the Labour party thinks that this is too much, too little or just right?
    Mr. Dorrell: When I announced £140 million extra saving through tight controls on bureaucracy in the health service, as my hon. Friend rightly says, Labour Members dismissed it as too little. Nine months later, they presented a programme designed to deliver not £140 million, but £100 million.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the incessant attacks on national health service managers? Does he agree that the national health service was undermanaged for many years and that managers are now delivering a more efficient, cost-effective and better health service?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Earlier, I quoted figures that show that there has been an

    931
    increase in the number of medical, dental and nursing staff in the national health service, and that there has also been an increase in the number of administrative support staff. As a result, patient treatment is growing faster than any of the statistics.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the right circumstances, the best way to save taxpayers' money and to ensure that it goes to patient care is to amalgamate trusts? Can we expect an early and quick decision on the amalgamation of the trusts on the Isle of Wight? We are all in favour of it and we want to see it get under way as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dorrell: I will not make an announcement from the Dispatch Box this afternoon in relation to my hon. Friend's request. However, I say to my hon. Friend and to trusts that are contemplating merger proposals that there are very few administrative savings available to trusts that merge that are not available to the same trusts if they choose to organise their affairs differently while remaining separate. What I look for in proposals to reorganise patient care is improved patient care, not simply changed bureaucratic arrangements.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State admit that even though he promises to cut back on the £1.5 billion in extra bureaucracy, he cannot unless he scraps the system that is creating it: the internal market? Is it not cynical of him to demand fewer managers while promoting a system that requires more managers? Will he admit that the right way to ensure minimum bureaucracy is to scrap the annual contracts, scrap the extra-contractual referrals and the protocol compliance, scrap the hundreds of thousands of invoices every year and scrap the national health service internal market?
    Mr. Dorrell: On behalf of the hon. Lady's many friends on the Government Benches, I wish her well in her campaign for re-election to the shadow Cabinet. I extend the sympathy of every Government Member to the hon. Lady because of the predicament in which she finds herself. She would dearly love to be able to offer more money to the health service but her Presbyterian colleague, the shadow Chancellor, will not let her do that. He has left her making bricks without straw.
    The hon. Lady referred to management costs. One day, she says that £1.5 billion can be saved in management costs, and then I point out that that is more than half the total that we spend; the next day, she cuts the figure to one fifteenth and £1.5 billion suddenly becomes £100 million. The inconvenience with £100 million is that it is one third of the amount that the Government are already committed to save.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the huge reductions in administrative costs brought about by the abolition of the regional health authorities, will my right hon. Friend confirm that increased administrative costs elsewhere in the NHS have led to better management and to more patient treatments? Will he look at how much further the clerical and paperwork undertaken by hospital doctors can be cut, even if it means employing more administrative staff?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point that is easily overlooked. I have emphasised that there has been a 21 per cent. increase in the number of medical and dental staff in the NHS over the past 10 years. If we do not provide administrative support to those doctors and dentists, they end up doing it themselves instead of delivering patient services. My hon. Friend is quite right: if we want an efficient use of the resources available to the health service, we have to provide administrative support staff as well as professional staff.

    Doctors (Recruitment)
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met chairmen of health trusts to discuss the impact of levels of health expenditure on the future supply of doctors from universities.[35786]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I have frequent meetings with chairmen of national health service trusts to discuss a range of issues, including how best to utilise the £459 million that trusts receive in recognition of the additional costs of teaching undergraduate medical and dental students.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that the Government's university funding cuts are having a severe effect on medical schools and, therefore, a direct impact on patient care? Is it not just plain folly for the Government to think that they can continue to cut medical school funding without ensuring that there will be a severe shortage of doctors in the future in the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: The conclusion that the hon. Lady reaches is quite wrong. She recognises a point that was made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in its report last year. The Government responded to the report by asking the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals for its view. That is why we set up the Richards review, which will report in due course. It will look at issues such as work load pressures, recruitment difficulties and future NHS support for new posts. The Government's continuing medical education policy aims to build upon the number of existing students. That is why we have announced an increase of 500 students before 2000, in order to build on our excellent record of creating more hospital doctors and more doctors per specialty than ever before.
    Dame Jill Knight: Can my hon. Friend confirm that 22,500 more general practitioners and dentists are working in the health service now than in 1979? Is that not a clear result of the Government's unique commitment to extra funding for that purpose?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right, and that applies to all doctors and to all specialties across the health service. It illustrates the fact that the Government are prepared to back with action our commitment to invest in the national health service—unlike the Labour party, which refuses to put a precise figure on its projected investment in the NHS on a year-on-year basis.

    Purchasing Costs
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he is currently undertaking of purchasing costs. [35788]
    Mr. Malone: Our continuing aim is to improve care for patients and to shorten waiting times, while minimising costs. Following our latest scrutiny, we plan to reduce administration costs by £40 million—money that can be freed for wider national health service investment.
    Mr. Orme: I make no apologies for returning to the effects of the common market—the internal market—and the impact that it is having in Salford in my constituency. As a consequence, we need more nurses and doctors and more patient care. We do not need the cuts that are now taking place in the national health service as a result of the internal market. What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Malone: I think that the right hon. Gentleman perhaps returned inadvertently to a feud of yesteryear within his party which might be reflected in present discussions about the health service and how to take matters forward.
    I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, while Opposition Front Benchers talk in absurd terms about £15 billion one day and £100 million the next, the Government have been getting on with pruning bureaucracy where possible. For example, the efficiency scrutiny, "Seeing the Wood, Sparing the Trees", which deals precisely with the purchasing mechanism, will release £40 million for patient care. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might welcome that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that fundholding practitioners, which are important in purchasing services and treatment, are able to carry over funds from year to year? If that is so, can my hon. Friend explain why trust hospitals and trusts, such as the East Cheshire NHS trust, are not also able to carry over funds from one year to another in order to take account of exceptional circumstances that occur from time to time? That would surely encourage efficiency and enable trusts to meet exceptional costs without difficulty.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend, as an expert in such matters, will know that there are controls on both. If GP fundholders manage to make savings in any given year, they are able to adjust—together with the health authority—the plans to purchase additional care for patients. We expect hospital trusts to manage their budgets in a sensible way and, if there are differences from year to year, we expect them to manage that over time.

    Cumberland Infirmary
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed private finance initiative scheme for the Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle. [35789]
    Mr. Horam: The scheme is progressing well. A preferred bidder has been identified and the full business case is expected to be submitted soon.
    Mr. Martlew: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he realise that, when I spoke to the chief executive some three weeks ago, he talked of reducing the number of beds in the new hospital to 450? Since then, pressure has been applied by Cumbria county council, medical consultants and me and, fortunately, that figure has increased to 474—the minimum number necessary. Will the Minister clarify whether any of those beds will be private beds? Will he clarify also the funding of that scheme? It was anticipated originally that the single site would create savings of £1.2 million, but the latest estimate is that there will be a deficit of £500,000. Will that money come from the Government, or will it come directly out of patient care?
    Mr. Horam: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman's original point about the number of beds. Two years ago, when the hospital was publicly funded, there were approximately 470, as there are now. There has been no change since then.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's point about funding, the health authority and the trust are currently looking into precisely that issue.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the PFI system were scrapped, would that not put at risk not only the Cumberland infirmary project in Carlisle but the Darenth Park proposal in my area? Would that risk not arise directly from the scrapping of the system, which is supported by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—who does not propose, and is not being allowed to propose, putting in money from the taxpayer?
    Mr. Horam: Absolutely. Many schemes all over the country, of which the Carlisle scheme is one, had to wait for nearly 30 years. They got nowhere with traditional funding. Now we are making progress everywhere. I must tell my hon. Friends that some hospitals would not be built if the Labour party's hostility to the private finance initiative were maintained. The PFI is our only hope when it comes to building some hospitals.
    Mr. Barron: Is not the PFI in Carlisle in the same sorry state—the same mess—as it is everywhere else in the country? Have not Ministers been travelling up and down the country making promises, and, as they have in Carlisle, building up expectations on which they know that they cannot deliver? Is it not surprising that even the Prime Minister has been reported as saying that he is particularly anxious about health, no major PFI hospital deals having yet been signed?
    Will the Minister now apologise to the House, and to the people of Carlisle and elsewhere, for the 17 per cent. cut in next year's national health service capital programme? Will he tell patients and clinicians in Carlisle, who have been waiting for years, when they will have a new hospital, and when the Government will put their PFI house in order?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman huffs and puffs a great deal, as he does at every Question Time when this subject arises. In fact, the PFI is proceeding extremely well. It is bringing the prospect of new hospitals, or hospital facilities, to places where such provision could not be envisaged under traditional procedures. One factor which stands in the way of that is the Labour party's

    935
    old-fashioned attitude, which cannot conceive of the existence of new, radical measures to deal with the problem. The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that he is backing a loser.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the paradox that, while the deputy leader of the Labour party claims to have invented the PFI, Labour Back Benchers spend their time criticising it?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are getting a long way from Carlisle.
    Mr. Horam: We are indeed. As usual, the Labour party is all over the place.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis. [35790]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The United Kingdom has an excellent record on tuberculosis control, and we are determined that that should remain the case. Most recently, we have published two reports from the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis, "The Control of Tuberculosis at Local Level" and "Tuberculosis and Homeless People".
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given notice to the Minister's private office? In what year did the Department of Health first learn of the likely medical consequences—tuberculosis, and other illnesses—of the alleged nuclear incident at Aldermaston in 1958?
    Mr. Bowis: One never quite knows where the spirit of Linlithgow is going to land. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would be stretching the question a little.
    The clinical condition of tuberculosis is brought about by exposure to bacterial infection. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not related to exposure to radiation.
    The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—has considered allegations of an increased incidence of childhood cancer around a number of nuclear establishments. Its third report did not include Royal Air Force sites at Greenham Common. In that report, COMARE recommended that a nationwide study of the geographical distribution of the incidence of childhood cancer should be undertaken. The study is under way and COMARE will consider all new data that are available in assessing whether there is an association between local levels of contamination and the incidence of cancer.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of the incidence of antibiotics becoming immune in the treatment of tuberculosis? If so, is there not a case for advising the medical profession to reserve stronger-acting
    936
    antibiotics for the serious diseases rather than prescribing them on a more prophylactic basis for less serious diseases?
    Mr. Bowis: We have had groups examining these matters. We are aware of drug-resistant TB, and I am happy to say that it is at low levels in the United Kingdom. That does not mean that such TB is resistant to all drugs. It is resistant to some, however, and therefore is more complex to treat. An expert working group has been established to examine these matters and to bring forward recommendations.

    Read Codes
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his assessment of the rate of progress to be made in implementing Read codes in clinical settings in the NHS by 1 January (a) 1997, (b)1998 and (c) 1999. [35791]
    Mr. Horam: Yes. A report will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for his answer. In addition to the widespread concerns about the implementation of Read codes, will he confirm that his Department wrote to Dr. Read's private company, CAMS, last month stating, and I quote—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—that there was a deliberate attempt—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no quoting during Question Time. Please paraphrase.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that his Department wrote to Computer Aided Medical Supplies—Dr. Read's private company, which is getting a nice little earner out of the NHS—to say that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Department of Health's auditors? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to re-examine the relationship between the NHS's centre for coding and classification, which is run by Dr. Read, and CAMS, the company owned by Dr. Read? Should we now consider renaming CAMS as SCAM, as it is making not simply money but illegal money out of the NHS?
    Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Audit Office is conducting a preliminary investigation into the arrangements between CAMS and the national health service precisely to examine value-for-money questions and questions of probity. We should wait until that report is clear to decide how we should proceed.

    Diabetics
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the current number of insulin-dependent diabetics and non-insulin-dependent diabetics in the United Kingdom. [35792]
    Mr. Bowis: The health survey for England 1994 estimated that the prevalence of diabetics was approximately 2.4 per cent. Studies suggest that 80 per cent. of people with diabetes are non-insulin dependent.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is the Minister aware that the number of new cases of diabetes is rising each year and that the

    937
    estimated cost to the national health service is between £1.4 billion and £1.8 billion a year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more resources targeted directly at finding the causes, ameliorating and eventually curing diabetes would be a wonderful investment for the NHS, and would in the end prevent much human misery as well as save much public cash?
    Mr. Bowis: I agree that diabetes is treated extremely seriously by the NHS. We need to combine treatment, care, prevention and cure where possible, and research is a party to all that. The fact that we have the sub-group of the clinical outcomes group examining the purchaser guidance that should be developed, based on the St. Vincent's task force recommendations, should be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. The report is expected at about the end of the year. In addition, both the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health have made about £5 million available for major research projects. That, too, is the way forward.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chronic disease management programme has been very successful in improving standards of care for people suffering from diabetes?
    Mr. Bowis: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he said that the chronic disease management programme was playing an important part in that, and I am happy to say that more than 90 per cent. of general practitioners now run this programme for diabetes, which, of course, enables them to keep a register in their surgeries, to see their patients once a year and to check, in particular, the eyes and feet, as recommended by St. Vincent's.

    NHS Trusts (Cost Improvement Programmes)
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met chief executives of health trusts to discuss the current cost improvement programmes. [35793]
    Mr. Dorrell: The regional offices of the NHS executive consider the plans of each trust on my behalf, including efficiency gains negotiated with them.
    Mrs. Kennedy: When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Keith Parsons, the part-time chief executive of Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS trust, will he ask him to explain to the people of Liverpool how he is able to charter an airplane to bring him from a medical conference in Edinburgh to attend the last board meeting of the trust, and then to take him back again, while he is seeking to close four wards in Broadgreen hospital in my constituency, two of which are proving impossible to close because of so-called "over-activity"—in other words, too many orthopaedic geriatric patients who desperately need the services that those wards provide?
    Mr. Dorrell: What I will do if I meet this gentleman is congratulate him on the fact that his hospital was the first hospital in the NHS to declare that it had no people on its waiting list waiting for more than 12 months. We might have heard that from the hon. Lady when commenting on the affairs of her constituency.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35812]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Today marks the launch of the Gun Control Network by the families of the victims of Hungerford and Dunblane. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the strength of the case against the private ownership of handguns? Will he accept that such a measure to ban them would receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and of the recent petition calling for strengthened control over firearms. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have been careful to consult the Opposition parties on this issue from the outset, and I am delighted that, thus far, we have received their firm support for the way in which we are proceeding. Since 1979, we have strengthened firearms controls. As soon as we receive the report from Lord Cullen, we will consider it with great care. I am happy to reiterate to the House that, in the event it is needed, we have preserved a legislative slot to take any action that is required.
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35813]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: In the light of the great news that Lite-On and LG are bringing thousands of new jobs to Scotland and Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that breaking up the United Kingdom, creating an extra tier of regional government, surrounding it all in bureaucracy and making the Scots pay more tax is likely to scare away potential new investors? Is this not new Labour being new danger?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to welcome these substantial new investments to Scotland and Wales. They are the latest of a large number of inward investments that we have seen not only in Scotland and Wales but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly hope that we shall get more. They are coming here predominantly because of the economic environment—[interruption]—because this country is an economic success story—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is chuntering in the back row. He seems to forget that they have been coming here for 15 years under Conservative policies, because we have created a combination of lower inflation, lower taxes and lower costs. That is attractive not just to companies in this country but to world investors seeking the right country in which to place their money. I am delighted that they place it here. It would be a tragedy if policies were followed that would prevent them from doing so in future.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall promising the country at the previous general election that he would balance the budget? How does he square that with today's further disastrous borrowing figures which show that, leaving aside privatisation moneys, the Government's overdraft this year is running at a higher level than at the same time last year?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would look carefully at today's borrowing figures, he would see that they are entirely consistent with the economic forecast and that they confirm the excellent state of the economy—sustainable growth, low inflation and falling Government borrowing. As for comparatives, since 1979, average borrowing as a proportion of gross domestic product has been just under one half as much as under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will just confirm that this Conservative Government have received more in North sea oil revenues and from privatising the nation's assets than the borrowing requirement under the last Labour Government. That is what his Government have had. Is it not also a fact that, under his prime ministership, the public debt has doubled? Will he confirm this statistic and answer this question directly: is it not the case that, as a result of his Government's borrowing policies, every family in this country now pays £1,000 a year in tax, not for better services in respect of health, education and law and order but just to service the debt that he has created? Is that right or is it wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is completely misleading the House. He knows what resources have been spent in recent years. I will tell him where they have gone—they have gone on health, education, defence and public services. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who says that he wants to keep taxes down, yet he wants to put public expenditure up. The reality is that, whereas he may play games in opposition, we have to deal with the realities of producing a successful economy, as we have done in recent years and as we will do in the years to come.
    Mr. Blair: Not a single one of those figures did the Prime Minister dispute—£1,000 a year in tax just to service the debt. Let me tell the Prime Minister that, if he wants to have a better balance in public spending, why not tackle the problems of long-term unemployment which have put up the bills for people in this country? Is it not the truth—[Interruption.] That is the party that has spent on welfare and unemployment but lowered spending on investment for the country's future. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if an ordinary member of the public had run an overdraft as large as this, he would have been told that his time was up and his home should be repossessed? Is that not the fate so richly deserved by this Government and this Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Dear, oh dear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about success in dealing with unemployment, perhaps he would care to acknowledge that we have the lowest rate of unemployment of any significant nation in western Europe; that unemployment has been falling for three years, which it has not been doing anywhere else; that every single Labour
    940
    Government we have ever been cursed with have increased unemployment dramatically; that he has policies that would increase the costs of employers, which would create unemployment; and that one of his unions is asking for a minimum wage of £6.03 an hour, which would cost an enormous amount in unemployment.
    While the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about economic performance, let me mention the things that he neglected to mention: the lowest level of inflation for 50 years; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."]—four years of falling unemployment and increasing employment—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."]—the lowest rate of basic tax for 50 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."]—disposable income rising way above inflation—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."]—No. 1 in Europe for investment—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."]—in the interests of other questioners, I shall stop there, but there is far more to the success of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35814]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no responsible Prime Minister would weaken Britain's veto in Europe by giving Brussels more powers to determine matters that should be voted on and discussed in the House? Does not new Labour wish to surrender Britain's veto in Europe? Does not new, phoney Labour mean new, real danger for residents in Basildon, Southend and the whole country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not suggest that the dangers from those policies are in only Basildon and Southend. They are in every constituency around the land. He is quite right.
    The Government are not prepared to see our veto eroded, as the Labour party apparently is. On issues of national and constitutional significance, any Government should be prepared to protect British interests, if necessary by using the veto and saying no. I regret that the Opposition are committed to undermining the veto. If they say that they are never going to be isolated in Europe, what they are saying is that they would never use the veto whether it was in this country's interests or not. They would follow the line determined by our European partners. That is their policy out of their own mouths, and upon that let them be judged.
    Mr. Ashdown: But Britain's national debt has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Britain's annual debt has doubled against what the Prime Minister said that it would be two years ago. Is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm the words of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer in spring this year when he said that, when public borrowing was around £30 billion a year, tax cuts were irresponsible?
    The Prime Minister: As to the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. It is some months away. We will deal prudently, as we have always done, with that aspect.

    941
    I seem to remember the right hon. Gentleman's party supporting the largest public borrowing that we have ever seen at any stage in this country. Under this Government, the economy has gone from strength to strength to strength. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about public borrowing, as I am, I invite him and the leader of the Labour party to support the Government in the public expenditure decisions that we will have to take in the forthcoming public expenditure round. We will judge by their words whether they support the decisions that we will take in the public spending round. If they support restraint, it will be the first time that they have done so.
    Sir John Gorst: In view of the industrial relations unrest in the Post Office, will my right hon. Friend give consideration not merely to the suspension of the monopoly but to the application of a law of contract to all parties in the Post Office?
    The Prime Minister: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about the likely dangers of a Post Office strike. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is giving consideration to suspension of the monopoly and I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's further point.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35815]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hall: The Prime Minister will be aware that last year's tax revenue fell short by a staggering £7 billion. Likewise, last year's public sector borrowing requirement was £10 billion greater than forecast 16 months previously. Does he agree that, if a managing director in the private sector made such an overestimate of a company's income and plunged it into such huge debt, he would be sacked? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well the degrees of difficulty in determining tax revenue. Of course, his way of determining tax revenue would be
    942
    to support his leader in increasing taxes, with the large range of extra taxes that the Labour party is already planning. He might as well admit it.
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35816]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brazier: In considering the very sad events in Ulster and welcoming the deployment of extra troops there, I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the overwhelming priority must be the restoration of security, which must involve whatever resources and legal powers the security forces require.
    The Prime Minister: Self-evidently, the overwhelming need is to restore normal law and order to the Province so that problems are solved by dialogue and not by violence and confrontation. We must continue to do whatever we can to ensure that the bomb in Enniskillen—whoever turns out to be responsible for it—does not relaunch the cycle of violence that has so scarred life in Northern Ireland in recent years. I particularly welcome the restraint that has been shown by loyalist groups and I very much hope that they will continue to show that restraint in future. The security forces have our full support. They will continue to have our full support in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [35817]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that 21 Conservative Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion expressing serious concern about the sale of Ministry of Defence homes and that one of them described it as a half-baked scheme, deeply upsetting to service families, how do the Prime Minister and the Government justify the sale and the £900 million a year rent bill to the British public?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is mistaken in what she says and in her judgment. The service chiefs support the sale. They have recognised and said publicly that it will raise £1.5 billion in public revenue. The Labour party has said a great deal about public borrowing. Will they vote against the £1.5 billion that the sale will bring into the public revenue and cut borrowing, or will it be another occasion when the leader of the Labour party says one thing and votes in a quite different way?

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wrote to you yesterday enclosing a piece of House of Commons notepaper that had been transformed into a Labour party recruiting document. I registered my interest as I felt that I could make valuable use of such documentation in my own constituency. I refrained from doing so, because it is my understanding that it would be a breach of regulations and, as a supporter of law and order, I would not wish to deviate from the straight and narrow.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman refers to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who has apologised to me for his misuse of the House emblem and agreed to reimburse the House authorities for all the costs that have been incurred.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am so relieved that you have managed to recognise an elder Member. The Secretary of State for Health a little earlier used the word Presbyterian in a tone that suggested disapprobation. Would the House and would he recognise that the most principled and the most independent-minded Members of this place are Presbyterians like myself, and proud of it?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order, but as I seldom recognise the aging Member, I was prepared to listen to him today.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the ten-minute Bill that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is about to present. As she was the council leader who presided over and covered up the most appalling abuse in homes in Islington, will you rule as to whether she has a declarable interest in introducing the debate?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has no declarable interest. The House should exercise the tolerance that I expect of it and listen to the hon. Lady. I have no idea what the hon. Lady has to say, so I think that we should hear her out.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, tomorrow we shall have Trade and Industry questions, and I have Question 2. In consequence, a letter was sent to me, probably inadvertently, by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), whom I have informed that I intended to raise the matter. The hon. Gentleman's brief letter says:
"I should be most grateful if you could spare the time to attend a brief discussion with DTI Ministers at 2.15 pm on Wednesday, 17 July. Your contribution to DTI Question Time at 2.30 pm is much appreciated, and this will be an opportunity to ensure that the resultant exchanges are, as far as possible, beneficial to all concerned.
The meeting will be held in the Large Ministerial Conference Room.
I look forward to seeing you there".
Is it in order for Ministers to meet hon. Members to go through questions and arrange what should take place in the House?
Madam Speaker: Of course it is in order for Ministers and Members to meet on any issue. But I am sure that Opposition Members wish that they were sufficiently fortunate for more such letters to come their way.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the issue behind the ten-minute Bill that we are about to deal with be held to be sub judice? It has been reported in the press that Mr. Demetrious Panton, who was abused as a resident of an Islington council home, is suing the council and will summons its former leader, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), to give evidence. Is it not then wrong for the hon. Lady to introduce a ten-minute Bill dealing with the banning of paedophiles? [HON. MEMBERS: "Did the hon. Gentleman give notice?"] Yes, I did.
Hon. Members: When?
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have these arguments across the Floor of the House. I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has already given notice.
Mr. Marshall indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman assures me that that is the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Order. Probably at 2.30 or perhaps 3.30. I know the way in which things happen in the House; I have been here too long not to understand all that. I can assure the hon. Member for Hendon, South that had the matter been sub judice, it would not have appeared on the Order Paper today.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the great benefits of your becoming Speaker was that you stamped on a procedure used by certain Members before that time—talking among themselves to drown out an hon. Member who was speaking. It is one of our great privileges to be heard when we speak on behalf of our constituents in this place. During last night's debate on assisted places, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was not actually heckled—that might have been fairer—Conservative Members talked among themselves to drown out a speech that they dared not listen to. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule with a firm rod those who would stop Members speaking or being heard in the House?
Madam Speaker: I was not, of course, in the Chair throughout the whole of yesterday's proceedings, but I am sure that my deputy dealt with the matter correctly. I have always said that in this House, Members of Parliament do not have to listen to what others say, but by jove, the Member who is speaking must be heard. There is an important distinction between the two. If hon. Members do not want to listen, they must close their ears and keep quiet, or leave the Chamber. Whoever has the Floor will be heard.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point arises from the Prime Minister's final reply during Prime Minister's questions, and from the Government amendment that we shall soon debate to the Opposition motion on the sale of

945
married quarters. The Prime Minister said that the service chiefs support that sale. I should like guidance from you, Madam Speaker, on what protection can be given to the chiefs of staff against such liberal interpretation of what they have said. As a Member of the Defence Select Committee, I know that the chiefs of staff have said that
"the benefits … outweigh the risks"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not defend the chiefs of staff, who are quite capable of defending themselves.
Mr. Home Robertson rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if he disagrees with what the Prime Minister or anyone else says, he has an opportunity in the forthcoming debate to get up and say so and to correct what he believes to be wrong. 'That is the way in which we proceed here—by making corrections and comments across the Floor of the House, and not by seeking to make political points through the Chair.

Protection and Education of Children
3.39 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of short-notice and temporary teachers.
In bringing the Bill before the House, I seek to address vital issues that affect every child, every day, in every school. The Bill concerns the regulation of supply teachers, and the threat to children created by the gap in legislation that I have uncovered is extremely grave and potentially disastrous.
If legislation is not introduced, we shall all be guilty of failing to ensure, first, that our children are properly protected in school and, secondly, that they are being taught to the highest educational standards. A survey by the Department for Education and Employment found that one in 25 teachers in school is a supply teacher. But from the child's point of view, when heads and others who do not normally teach are discounted, it is likely that one in 15 or one in 20 classes is taught by a supply teacher—more than two classes every week for every child. We are talking about 7 per cent. of a school's budget.
Since we delegated responsibilities to schools, most head teachers come to school at 7.30 in the morning. They will not make 50 telephone calls to teachers whom they know to find a supply teacher, but will instead make one call to a private supply teacher agency. The Department's survey found that 70 per cent. of supply teachers in inner London and 42 per cent. in outer London were recruited through private supply agencies.
The agencies are here to stay. Some provide a first-class service—others do not. All work in an unregulated market where rogue operators are able to prosper. [Interruption.] Like all parents, I want to feel certain that my child is safe and is being well taught. At present, no parent can be certain. [Interruption.]
The agencies register as employment agencies, and have enjoyed substantial deregulation as part of the Government's obsessive dogma. Anybody can set up as a supply teacher agency in their front room without being vetted. I have come across Classic Services Ltd. in Porth, South Glamorgan. It was a temping agency for crane operators, but it got wind of the fact that supply teaching was a lucrative business and decided to branch out. That certainly gives a new meaning to lifting standards.
I have three serious concerns about the legal framework. First, agencies are not compelled by law to carry out essential checks on criminal records, health, qualifications and first-hand references and on whether the applicant is on the Department's list 99 of persons barred from teaching. In Manchester, the Select temping agency sent its director into a school to drum up business. The headmaster recognised the director as someone who was on the Department's list 99 of banned teachers. The director was an ex-headmaster who had been banned from teaching after being convicted of theft.
A French teacher was turned down by a reputable agency, Timeplan, because her reference said that she was
"very needy ․ somewhat unstable"
and concluded:
"l am therefore unable to recommend her".
She was then taken on by People agency, which now calls itself Recruit, which took her on without checking her and placed her in a school in Southwark. There she behaved

947
inappropriately with boys, seduced two of them and falsely accused them of raping her. Although the truth came out, it was after the lives of the two lads and their families had been ruined.
Another agency took on a teacher without doing a police check that would have uncovered two convictions for indecent behaviour. He was sent to a school in Hackney—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have had heard enough. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members who do not want to listen can leave; those who want to hear should stay and listen.
Ms Hodge: The teacher was sent to a school in Hackney and has since been convicted of abusing two children in his care. HMS Education Personnel agency sent a young supply teacher to the Lonesome first school in Mitcham. On her second day at the school, she gagged three children with sellotape after they failed to keep quiet. Those horror stories are probably the tip of an iceberg. They result from a simple failure to check.
My second concern is about standards. When agency nurses are recruited, they have to be interviewed by qualified nurses under the Nurses Agencies Act 1957. Anyone can interview a supply teacher—even I or you, Madam Speaker. Many supply teachers come from overseas and so do not have qualified teacher status. They may be competent, but their qualifications are not assessed. Permanent supply teachers from overseas have to be assessed and have to do additional training, if necessary, to obtain qualified teacher status.
Agencies cut corners to make money. I have seen an advertisement from Recruit plc with the offer, "Book 10 teacher days and get one free." An agency in Ealing offered schools £10 off a teacher if they booked before Christmas. In that climate, quality cannot be assured. It is no wonder that when Newham withdrew delegation from a primary school judged by the Office for Standards in Education to be failing, it found that half the staff were supply teachers.
My third concern springs from the way in which tax loopholes are exploited. Any copy of TNT Magazine, the free trade journal targeted at Australians and New Zealanders, contains endless ads from supply teacher agencies, among which are some from companies such as Kensington Ltd. They offer young Australian teachers off-the-shelf companies for £50 to £75 if they want headed notepaper. An agency such as Protem will find the teacher a supply job. The wages will be paid into the company and thus no tax, national insurance or VAT is payable. By the time the tax authorities catch up, the teacher has left the country.
When my researcher, masquerading as an Australian supply teacher, rang Protem, it positively encouraged her to work through an off-the-shelf company. That tax fiddle is not only outrageous but raises an another unresolved issue: who is responsible for personal and public liability insurance in such circumstances—the teacher, the school, the agency, or the local education authority? No one knows, so we are all at risk.
Our children deserve better. The issue is too big and too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Supply teacher agencies are a permanent feature, but that
948
makes it all the more important to legislate to eliminate the cowboys. The reputable agencies support my proposals, as do the representative organisations in the teaching world. Two days after the long title of my Bill appeared on the Order Paper, the Government issued a circular. I welcome that advance, but it is not enough. It does not regulate by law the private supply teachers agencies.
My Bill would: first, create a statutory framework to vet agencies before registration; secondly, insist on essential checks to protect the welfare of our children; thirdly, provide for annual unannounced inspections by Government inspectors; fourthly, ensure that supply teachers from overseas are brought into the scheme that operates for permanent overseas trained teachers, with the agencies footing the bill; fifthly, put in place a bonding system for private agencies modelled on the Association of British Travel Agents scheme for travel agents; and, sixthly, ensure that the cost of the legislation is met by the agencies.
We cannot wait for further scandals. Parliament must act promptly. My Bill deserves the support of the whole House so that we can legislate swiftly in the interests of schools, teachers and, most importantly, in the interests of all our children.
3.48 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I oppose the Bill moved by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). First, I should like to put it into its proper context. All hon. Members know that a ten-minute Bill at this stage in a Session cannot possibly be considered, and that it has no chance of becoming law. Therefore, all that counts for the Bill is its introduction today. It seems to be a reasonable measure, and it was very reasonably introduced by the hon. Lady. As she said, it would improve child protection, which Conservative Members support. If the measure were a serious attempt to legislate, I might well support it.
However, many hon. Members, including some Labour Members, have questions about the Bill. Our decision on whether to support it must rely on the answers to those questions. From what I have heard today, I fear that the questions that I shall pose have not yet been answered. Why is the hon. Member for Barking introducing the Bill, and why now?
As has been mentioned by hon. Members in sedentary interventions, the hon. Lady was the leader of Islington council for 10 years, until 1992. No one can now be unaware of what happened in Islington council's children's homes. She told the House that her Bill seeks
"to address vital issues that affect every child, every day".
Vital issues affected children in Islington every day.
As the Evening Standard said on 23 May 1995:
"An era that allowed pimps and paedophiles to flourish unchallenged at the heart of child care in Islington, corrupting and seducing vulnerable children bestowed into their care, is finally over. It has taken three and a half years"—[Interruption.]
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Hughes: I do not, of course, seek to blame the hon. Member for Barking personally for that. In the context of

949
the Bill, however, we are entitled to question what was going on in that council at that time and to ask why she maintained, right up to the end, that the allegations were
"A sensational piece of gutter journalism"—[interruption.]
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must hear out the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Barking said in her speech that agencies are not required by law to carry out checks. Islington council was required to carry out checks, but it did not. That left her successor as leader of Islington council to apologise to the Evening Standard—which revealed what was going on—as he could scarcely do otherwise.
How could that situation in Islington council have been allowed to arise in the first place? When it was exposed, why did the hon. Member for Barking seek to cover it up?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion is very clear, but the hon. Gentleman is not speaking to it.
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Workington is not prepared to listen to the opposition to the Bill, I shall have to use the Standing Order against him. I will have free speech in the House. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) introduced the Bill, and we must now hear the opposition to it.
Mr. Hughes: Why this Bill, and why now? Those are the questions prompted by the Bill. Is the Bill, with its fine-sounding ideas, an elaborate smokescreen designed to pre-empt new reports or new allegations? What further revelations are about to ooze out about Islington council?
We know that one victim is about to sue the council and to summon the hon. Member for Barking as a witness. The victim—who is a Labour party member—alleges that a series of earlier reports to Islington council were ignored, and that the council leadership should have known what was happening in its children's homes.
Those are important questions, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) thinks that the matter is funny. The children concerned and their parents do not think that it is funny. Those important questions have never been answered, and the Bill must be seen as a further attempt to obscure rather than to reveal the truth.
We can judge the Bill's real intentions only if we are told what the Islington leadership knew and when it knew it. After all, the first complaints were made in 1985—seven years before abuse was admitted by the leadership. What does the leadership know now, which the rest of us have yet to find out? Once those questions are fully answered, the hon. Lady will have ample opportunity in the future to come back to the House with a serious and properly timed attempt to change the law on short-notice and temporary teachers. Today is not that opportunity.
I know that some Labour Members will not support the hon. Lady in the Division Lobby and I suggest that, before supporting the Bill, all hon. Members question why they are being asked to vote for the Bill at this time and by that hon. Member.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 39.

Division No. 202]

[3.54 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Hinchliffe, David

Ainger, Nick

Hodge, Margaret

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Home Robertson, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hoyle, Doug

Barnes, Harry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Barron, Kevin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bayley, Hugh

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Beggs, Roy

Hutton, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Illsley, Eric

Bell, Stuart

Ingram, Adam

Betts, Clive

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Blunkett, David

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Bradley, Keith

Jamieson, David

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

Janner, Greville

Callaghan, Jim

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Chidgey, David

Jowell, Tessa

Chisholm, Malcolm

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Church, Judith

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

Clapham, Michael

Khabra, Piara S

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Coffey, Ann

Lewis, Terry

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livingstone, Ken

Cox, Tom

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Loyden, Eddie

Cunningham, Roseanna

McAllion, John

Dafis, Cynog

McFall, John

Dalyell, Tam

McKelvey, William

Davidson, Ian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McLeish, Henry

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

MacShane, Denis

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

Madden, Max

Denham, John

Mahon, Alice

Dewar, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Dixon, Don

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Donohoe, Brian H

Martlew, Eric

Eagle, Ms Angela

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Eastham, Ken

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morgan, Rhodri

Faulds. Andrew

Morley, Elliot

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Galbraith, Sam

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gapes, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Garrett, John

Murphy, Paul

George, Bruce

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

O'Hara, Edward

Godman, Dr Norman A

Olner, Bill

Golding, Mrs Llin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Gordon, Mildred

Pickthall, Colin

Graham, Thomas

Pike, Peter L

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pope, Greg

Gunnell, John

Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

Hall, Mike

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hanson, David

Reid, Dr John

Hardy, Peter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Henderson, Doug

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Heppell, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

951

Rowlands, Ted

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Sheerman, Barry

Timms, Stephen

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tipping, Paddy

Simpson, Alan

Touhig, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dennis

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Tyler, Paul

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Walley, Joan

Spearing, Nigel

Wareing, Robert N

Wicks, Malcolm

Spellar, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Stevenson, George

Wray, Jimmy

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Ms Rachel Squire and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Michael Connarty.

NOES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Key, Robert

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Martin, David

Brazier, Julian

Moate, Sir Roger

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Nicholls, Patrick

Budgen, Nicholas

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Colvin, Michael

Pawsey, James

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Duncan Smith, Iain

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Dunn, Bob

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Steen, Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Fry, Sir Peter

Viggers, Peter

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Whitney, Ray

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tellers for the Noes:

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Mr. David Shaw and

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Margaret Hodge, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Ms Joan Walley, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. John Garrett and Ms Janet Anderson.

PROTECTION AND EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
Ms Margaret Hodge accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of short-notice and temporary teachers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 178.]
Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Ministry of Defence Housing
  [Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee on the future of the Married Quarters Estate, House of Commons Paper No. 424 of Session 1995–96.]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have to limit the speeches of Back Benchers to 10 minutes during the debate.
  4.8 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the Government proposes to sell all Ministry of Defence married quarters in England and Wales, including those occupied by service families as well as empty properties, to developers; further notes that this will leave service tenants dependent on a declining number of properties leased back for 25 years; notes that most of the properties can be exchanged by the developer with a neutral arbitrator, rather than the tenants or the Ministry of Defence, deciding whether or not exchanges are permitted; notes that the arbitrator will have to base his decision on set criteria which are vaguely worded, so that developers with expert legal advice will be able progressively to cream off the best estates; notes that steep rises in rents and the downward ratchet on the number of homes leased back, embodied in the proposed scheme, will progressively reduce and break up married quarter estates; notes that, especially at a time of overstretch. and poor recruiting and retention, these estates play a vital role in maintaining the morale of service families and the maintenance of the regimental system; and calls on the Government to dispose of surplus estates, to provide homes for civilian families but, before selling any estate with service tenants, to consult the tenants on the estate, to report to Parliament on the outcome of the consultation and to table an affirmative resolution in both Houses.
  Today's debate is the first occasion on which hon. Members have had the opportunity to consider the sale of our armed forces' family homes, something that has caused distress and concern to service families. Government and Opposition Members have voiced their concerns, including 20 Government Members who recognise the damage of the Government's proposals, and what they will do to the morale of the armed forces and to the security of their family homes. As they are honourable men and women, we have every confidence that they will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  As the Prime Minister reminded us recently, the sale
  "has been under consideration for a number of years".—[Official Report, 25 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 149.]
  The Secretary of State's immediate predecessor wasted £5 million on financial advisers in an abortive attempt to sell off the houses. On 28 November 1995, the present Secretary of State announced out of the blue his master plan.
  That date is significant, as it was Budget day—which gives the game away. The Government have never seriously attempted to deny the fact that the sale was not concerned with the long-term interests of our service men and women: the scheme was concocted solely to raise finances for the Treasury coffers—which the House will recall is the Secretary of State's old hunting ground.
  One question that comes immediately to mind is: why has this scheme succeeded in interesting the financial markets when all the others have failed? The answer is

  953
  quite simple: this scheme is extremely financially rewarding for them, at the expense of the taxpayer and the service men and women and their families. The deal is breathtaking in its short-termism. The Government hope to raise about £1.5 billion by selling 58,000 forces family homes to a single purchaser—any one of four foreign financial institutions.
  The MOD then plans to rent back the houses in order to meet our forces' housing requirements. However, it will retain responsibility for repairs, maintenance and management of the estates. It has guaranteed the purchaser market-based rents on shorthold tenancies and sweeteners far in excess of the money invested. Well within a decade, the speculators will have got back their cash and more, and will also own all defence rnarried quarters and the associated land. The MOD gets to keep all the responsibility and none of the power over how the estate is run—all the bills and none of the proceeds from the estate.
  They are the facts as the House and our forces' families know them to be. What devil lurks in the detail of the scheme, which the MOD has consistently refused to disclose to hon. Members or to service families? Instead of allaying the very real concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of service families, the MOD's obsessive secrecy has increased them. We know where the details are, but we are not allowed to see the prospectus.
  The Government's lack of confidence in the plans is so great that they have refused numerous requests to see the "Married Quarters Estate Information Memorandum". In the past three weeks, representations have been made to me by a number of parties who have a financial stake in the sell-off. As a result of those meetings, I now understand why the scheme is so attractive to them—indeed, it is widely known as the "goldmine of the decade".
  Under the terms of the contract as set out in the "Married Quarters Estate Information Memorandum", the MOD will transfer 58,400 houses to the purchaser. Some 2,700 of them—the surplus estate—will be disposed of immediately by the purchaser for a quick profit. The remaining 55,700 houses—the retained estate—will be transferred to the purchaser on 999-year leases, with breaks every 25 years, and rented back by the MOD.
  The MOD will have to pay a guaranteed sum to the purchaser in order to rent the properties back. The sum will run into tens of millions of pounds every year; for the first year, the figure will be roughly £112 million. Over 25 years, that annual guaranteed payment alone will amount to many times more than the £1.5 billion to be raised from the sale. Market-rate rent rises will add to the sum to be paid by the MOD, while the purchaser will enjoy the attractive bonus of receiving progressively more empty houses, with which he can do what he chooses.
  The key is the 25-year period. Under the terms of the 25-year master agreement, there is a guaranteed release of further units. As well as the 2,700 surplus houses to be sold immediately by the purchaser, the MOD has promised to release further units each year. The first 695 family homes must be released within two years, with a minimum of 2,780 within five years, and a minimum of 13,360 will he released over the 25 years. That represents a quarter of the entire estate as it stands today. I can only
  954
  assume that such a drastic cut in the size of the estate reflects the Government's plans further to reduce the strength of our armed forces.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the MOD housing estate has been the subject of Public Accounts Committee recommendations for at least 10 years. At no time during that period have there been fewer than 12,000 empty homes, and at times the total has reached 15,000. Can the hon. Gentleman really defend such a state of affairs?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is this Tory Government.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was the case sone years back, into the Labour Government as well. It has been the most disgraceful and incompetent performance for many years, and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seems to want to perpetuate it. I can only tell him that the figures that he is now releasing do not even begin to match the number of homes on the MOD housing estate that have remained vacant for probably a quarter of a century and more.
  Dr. Clark: I cannot accept responsibility for the mismanagement of Army houses over the past 18 years. I must point out that it is possible to sell off the houses without this financial rip-off of a scheme.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No, I must press on. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I said that I would be as brief as I could.
  Let me list one or two of the other benefits gained by the lucky purchaser. An aspect of the sale that has received considerable attention is the site exchange option, which provides the purchaser with the right to require the MOD to hand over properties in exchange for substitute sites. In a desperate attempt to placate service families, the MOD introduced a number of vaguely worded criteria that must be met by the substitute sites, relating to, for instance, travel-to-work time, suitability and standard of dwellings, security considerations and prime rates. Importantly, the criteria do not include access to employment for dependants of service personnel, which concerns service families very much.
  That means that there is no guarantee for the families. The MOD has lost control of the transfer. If there is a dispute between the MOD and the purchaser, it will go to an arbitrator who will make the final decision. The military needs of this country will not be the criterion on which that decision is made. That directly contradicts the Prime Minister's assurance, given to the leader of the Labour party:
  "It will not mean service personnel being moved against their will."—[Official Report, 25 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 148.]
  He was wrong, and we know that he was wrong, because the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told us later that, under the terms of the contract, service families could be moved against their will, but would be forced to do so only if comparable accommodation was offered. What is comparable is a matter for debate.

  955
  Service families are used to being moved regularly. They often have to move at least once a year. I recently met a Royal Air Force widow who told me that, during her first years of service, her husband had to move eight times in two-and-a-half years. We all know of people in the military who move at least once a year. They accept that, because they know that they are being moved for military reasons. In future, however, they may be moved at the whim of property developers. The speculators will call the tune, not military demands.
  The Government claim that one of the benefits of the scheme will be an influx of £100 million over five years to improve married quarters. That is because, under the proposals—
  Mr. Frank Cook: Over seven years.
  Dr. Clark: I stand corrected. On the basis of seven years, the Government's case is even worse.
  Under the Government's proposals, the MOD will still have to pick up bills for repairs and maintenance. Last year alone, the MOD spent £126 million on repairs, and £40 million on upgrading the estate.
  In a recent parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), we learned that, in the past five years for which figures are available, about £198 million was gained from the sale of surplus properties. That is almost twice the amount that will be spent on reinvesting in the estate. It is fair for us to ask the Secretary of State why the moneys from sales were not used to improve the quality of housing of our service men and women. Where has the money gone? If the houses are in such a poor state of repair, what have the Secretary of State and the Government generally been doing for the past 18 years?
  For 25 years, the speculators will have a guaranteed income and receipt from sales. There will be a guaranteed cash flow. The principal attraction, however, is that, after 25 years, they will gain control of the married quarters estate. The memorandum to which I have referred gives the MOD the right to retain possession of the remaining houses after 25 years unless the landlord wishes to redevelop the properties.
  Late in the day, the MOD realised the shortcomings of the scheme, and introduced what it thought was a cunning scheme, in the form of a ministerial certificate related to the future operational effectiveness of the relevant establishment. Tragically, the so-called ministerial veto is virtually worthless. The legal experts retained by the would-be purchasers believe that the MOD would have the utmost difficulty in making its case in the courts. The ministerial veto is useless. After 25 years, it will be necessary to go cap in hand to the purchasers to retain the married quarters estate for military purposes.
  Mr. Bill Walker: As for intervention by Ministers, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that, during times of hostility, the Government take special powers and can do almost anything.
  Dr. Clark: There are much easier ways of trying to safeguard and protect our service men and women, and maintain their morale, than starting to wage a war so that
  956
  the Government of the day can introduce emergency legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has shown so much interest in defence matters, is prepared to betray the interests of service men and women.
  Given the facts that I have laid before the House, it is no wonder that our forces' families are so deeply concerned by the Secretary of State's proposals. Put simply, they feel betrayed and deserted by the Government. The House may not want to take my word for it, but, in a press statement on 30 May, the Royal British Legion declared that Ministers
  "have not thought through the long term consequences of the sell-off … in short"—
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Of course they have.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course they have," but the Royal British Legion knows a little bit about this. I suspect that, over the years, it has accumulated information, and this is its opinion. It said:
  "in short the proposals pose a threat to the ethos of Service life and demonstrate ignorance of Service people's real needs."
  What an indictment. It is small wonder that the Legion went on to demand that the sell-off should be postponed, pending a thorough review.
  Some of the most critical public statements against the proposals have come from the Army Families Federation, which declared that it was speaking out
  "to make the public aware of what irretrievable damage will be done to Service life if the Government sells off Service homes."
  The Defence Select Committee's report came out today. It is an excellent report. It analysed the problems, in the brief time that it had at its disposal, and concluded that, until such time as detailed proposals from the prospective purchasers have been communicated to it and assessed, it will not be in a position to reach a firm conclusion on the merits of the sale. As far as the Committee was concerned, the case was "not proven".
  In evidence before the Select Committee, the Army Families Federation said:
  "We know the Government was well aware of the concerns not only of the families but of if the three Services themselves, yet it appears to have ignored our warnings of the effect the sale will have on the morale of the Services, on recruitment, on retention and subsequently on the operational effectiveness of our Defence Force."
  That strength of feeling cannot be ignored. My office has been inundated—as, I am sure, have the offices of many right hon. and hon. Members—with calls from concerned service families. Such feelings have been widespread. Indeed, they were expressed in a full-page open letter in the Evening Standard under the headline, "Mr. Portillo, you are betraying us", written by the wife of one of the our service men.
  I believe that today the whole House should put our armed forces and their families first. It is easy to praise them from these Benches for their dedication and the sacrifice they make for this country. We all do it. But words are cheap. Words are not enough. The armed forces must know that they are valued and treated fairly by the House.
  I hope that I have clearly demonstrated that this ill-thought-out plan makes no long-term economic sense, and will cost the British taxpayer severely in the future.

  957
  It will continue to cause untold uncertainty to our service families, who rightly feel badly betrayed. Sometimes, the House has got to do something. Today is one of those occasions.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'supports the Government in its determination to improve the quality and management of service housing; notes that the proposed sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales will release £100 million of new funding to upgrade married quarters throughout the United Kingdom, and enable the Ministry of Defence to dispose more efficiently of surplus properties; notes that the sale will have no bearing on the charges service personnel pay for their quarters; recognises that the interests of the services and service families have been properly protected; and accepts the judgment of the Government and the Chiefs of Staff that the sale offers the right basis for real improvements in service housing which are long overdue.'.
  Nothing is more important to me than the welfare of our armed forces and their families. The Government must provide proper homes in which our service families can live, and take care of their families. That is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. Families provide each other with support and understanding, and it matters to service families to be secure and to be surrounded by friends.
  I take this opportunity to pay a whole-hearted tribute to service families and wives. They do not often receive the public recognition that is their due. In times of turbulence and great activity, still today they keep the home fires burning.
  It is vital for the soldier, sailor or airman on active service to know that the family is decently housed and properly looked after. Given Britain's present high levels of military activity, I thank the service wives and families for their patience, courage and stoicism. They are an absolutely integral part of service life.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I want to get a little further.
  A number of my hon Friends have expressed concern about our proposal to find a new owner for the married quarters. I am not surprised that it has been Conservatives who have raised the matter as it is the Conservative party that cares about defence and knows the issues that are of interest to service families.
  I welcome the attention that the subject has received. It has helped me to improve the scheme that I am proposing. I welcome the representations that we have had from the organisations of service wives and I also welcome the report from the Select Committee on Defence. The matter has aroused anxieties among service families who have had to cope with change and who fear that the proposal might bring more changes. I am pleased to set out today why the policy is a good one and why people should not be anxious.
  It is clearly good for morale and for peace of mind if service men and women who are posted are accompanied by their families. Our duty to provide married quarters for their families will continue indefinitely and we will meet the demand for them, where they are needed and when they are needed. But, in future, I propose that the Ministry should do so by renting, not by owning.
  958
  The Ministry has not been good at owning houses. In too many cases, their quality has fallen below the standard that service families have a right to expect and, legitimately, service families—like the rest of our community—have rising expectations. We now need to refurbish more homes more quickly. The sale of married quarters will provide the Ministry with an extra £100 million, which it would not otherwise have had, to spend on extra refurbishment. Over five years or so, we shall raise the quality of the houses we occupy to grade one condition.
  If we do not proceed with the sale, I cannot imagine how, with all the pressures on public finances, we could hope to complete that programme of improvements. We would condemn a large number of service families to go on living in poor conditions.
  The Ministry will do better and service families will benefit by our giving up ownership. Owning so many houses has its cost in that capital—taxpayers' money—is tied up unnecessarily and unproductively. Through the sale, that money can be released for better purposes, including meeting the many other demands for public sector capital investment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I am surrounded by hon. Members who would like to intervene. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was first on his feet.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State said that the money could be released for better purposes. Would he care to enlighten the House as to the specific purposes that he has in mind?
  Mr. Portillo: I gave an example straight away, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was on his feet before I had finished the sentence. I referred to other demands for public sector capital investment. This money is not tied up productively at the moment; it can be put to better use. I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
  Mr. Churchill: My right hon. Friend spoke about the costs of ownership of armed forces' houses, but how far have the Government truly considered the cost of the proposed lease-back scheme? My right hon. Friend will be aware that over the past five years, comparative rents in the private sector have been increasing three times as fast as the cost of living. What will be the impact on the public finances at the five-year intervals when the service rents are ratcheted up to market levels? What guarantee can he offer that any increased cost will not, at the end of the day, be sought by the Treasury from the defence vote rather than being borne by the Treasury, which properly should bear it, given that it will be receiving 15 times as much benefit from this deal as will the armed forces?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend made many points. I do not want to detain the House too long. I do not recognise my hon. Friend's figures for the rise in rents of shorthold tenancies. My figures show that rents have risen by 14 per cent. between 1990 and 1996. My understanding with the Treasury is that the defence budget will not be left worse off through making rental payments. Indeed, we will be better off because the Treasury will meet the rental payments. The Ministry of Defence can give up the

  959
  hidden costs that I have mentioned and exchange the uncertainties of ownership for a more certain stream of rental payments. What is more, as I have just said, the Ministry will be compensated by the Treasury for the rents paid.
  We have been bad owners in another way. We have a large number of empty houses, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) referred. Today, there are 12,000 of them in England and Wales alone. We have to pay to secure and maintain those houses out of the defence budget, and we are rightly criticised for not releasing houses in which civilian families could live.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Why not sell the empty houses?
  Mr. Portillo: It has not been for want of trying to sell them. Some of them are difficult to sell, so they remain on our hands, empty and expensive. Once there is a new owner, the Ministry can release surplus properties to him. Instead of having to search for a buyer ourselves, we will just need to give six months notice of leaving a site. From that moment, the property becomes the new owner's responsibility and the defence budget is relieved of the cost.
  The MOD alone will determine what houses will be given up—not the new owner, not anyone else—and it will be our clear policy to release them in discrete groups that do not break up the integrity of the service patch. There is absolutely no right for the new owner to cherry-pick or infill. We will be able to improve in that respect on recent experience. I recognise that, in some instances, the pressure on service housing managers to sell surplus property may have led them to release the most sellable houses, even if it risked breaching the integrity of the patch. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) has made that point to me. In future, we will be free to release only the properties that we do not need and are not central to a service community. There will be no more mixing of civilian families among service homes. Communities will be kept intact to maintain the security and mutual support of the patch.
  Mr. David Nicholson: On how many occasions in recent years have the Opposition decided to use one of their Supply days or half a Supply day to discuss bad management of MOD housing? On the medium and long-term siting of service and married quarters, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements will not prevent the moving of service quarters to parts of the country that are less under pressure from civil housing developments and that the geographical arrangements are not absolutely set in concrete?
  Mr. Portillo: We will require the houses where the Ministry of Defence needs to do its work. We will need houses where our people have to be. Those locations may well change—certainly over 25 years and even more so over 200 years. The arrangements give us the flexibility to acquire houses where we need them and to give up easily houses where we no longer need them. It seems much more sensible to achieve that by renting than by
  960
  owning. I do not recall any occasion on which the Opposition used their Supply days for the purpose to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Beith: I assure the Minister that I have asked many questions about the management of RAF housing. He may be confident about the arrangements, but if a service man is on an unaccompanied tour in, for example, the Falklands islands, and receives a letter from home saying that the family home is in question because it is one of those that may be exchanged as part of the development deal, the kind of picture that the Minister wanted to portray earlier of giving service men confidence will not be that portrayed at all. Service men overseas will be extremely worried when the news comes to them.
  Mr. Portillo: As the right hon. Gentleman may be able to imagine, I shall come to that issue later, and I shall address his point then.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: This is a short debate and I am therefore under pressure, but I realise that hon. Members want me to give way.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears to have said something very significant and reassuring, will he give us an assurance on the integrity of the site that there will be no question of purchasers being able to put their tenants in a military area? As he is well aware, many of us are very concerned about the integrity of service areas. Will he further give an indication about the security of houses in military establishments? Will they be treated differently? They are terribly important matters. The Secretary of State has raised a significant point. It would be reassuring for it to be included in the contract.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend can be entirely reassured. The new owner would have absolutely no right to put civilian tenants into military communities. As I said a moment ago, the properties that we give up are entirely a matter for the Ministry of Defence. They have nothing whatever to do with the new owner. The change affects the title to the properties. It does not affect their maintenance, security or any other aspect. I shall explain the special arrangements for the 11,000 properties that are behind the wire. Apart from that, we have no intention of giving up our responsibilities, nor do the civilian police have any intention of giving up their responsibility for security in married quarters simply because the title to the houses may have changed hands.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but the House will recognise that I am constrained by time.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the freehold of those properties is better off in the hands of professional property managers whose sole business is looking after property and who understand it, rather than in the hands of the Ministry of Defence, and that the resulting standard should be very much higher? He mentioned the £100

  961
  million to be spent on improving the properties. Will he ensure that the work is carried out by professional people rather than by the Ministry of Defence? Perhaps he should consult the new owners to make sure that we achieve good value for that £100 million.
  Mr. Portillo: Most of the improvements to our housing are carried out by private contractors. That has always been the case. No doubt it will continue in future. We have not done well in maintenance in the past. We now have a new organisation in charge of maintenance—the Defence Housing Executive. I shall explain the improvements that we have made in that respect.
  Mr. Nick Ainger rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been attempting to intervene, but then I must make substantial progress.
  Mr. Ainger: The Secretary of State has told the House about the ease of disposal of MOD properties either to the single buyer or afterwards—if the purchaser wishes to dispose of them. Has every property that he has mentioned—all 58,000 plus—been cleared through the Crichel Down regulations? Many of them must be covered by those regulations. He is well aware of the problems at Trecwn, just outside my constituency, where properties that were declared surplus at the beginning of 1994 still have not been disposed of because of the Crichel Down regulations. Will he assure the House that each property that he says can be easily disposed of can be sold?
  Mr. Portillo: I have engaged excellent legal advisers. I am not aware of any problem in that respect and I have great confidence in the Government's title to all the properties that are being disposed of.
  Dr. David Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has made an interesting point. Although I heard what the Secretary of State said, may I ask him to assure the House that the principles that guided the Crichel Down ruling will apply to the freehold sale of the land currently held by the MOD which is involved in the memorandum? Will the Government adhere to those principles?
  Mr. Portillo: Ministers are anxious to explain every point. I shall ensure that that point is covered fully by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in his reply to the debate.
  The Ministry will be the tenant of the new owner and a most exceptional one at that. The Government will retain responsibility for the maintenance of the homes. We shall be renting more than 50,000 properties and we are the most reliable tenant in the country. That enables us to rent at a discount of more than 50 per cent., guaranteed for the first 25 years. At the end of that period, the rents will be renegotiated, taking account of the size of our lettings, our responsibility for the maintenance and our reliability as a tenant. I cannot imagine that any other tenant will be as attractive to the owner and I have no doubt that we shall again be able to secure an excellent deal.
  As the Select Committee said, we shall need to do better on maintenance. The chief of the Defence Housing Executive is a professional in housing management and
  962
  he will expect his staff too to obtain the proper qualifications. As now, those who occupy the houses will pay their accommodation charges to the Ministry, not to the new owner. What they pay will be set by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body as it is now. The review body will take no account of the rent paid by the MOD to the owner.
  Service families will continue to enjoy a subsidy that will push their rents well below market levels. That subsidy is deserved because service families move house frequently—each time they are posted. They do not have the choices or the rights enjoyed by civilian tenants, such as security of tenure or the right to buy. Although the pay review body recently increased rents, it increased pay by much more so as to leave service men clearly better off overall.
  Sir Michael Shersby: By how much?
  Mr. Portillo: In respect of a corporal, for example, rents were raised by £22 a month between April 1995 and December 1996 and pay rose by £66 a month. The occupiers of married quarters will have no dealings with the new owner. They will see few differences from the sale except the better programme of home improvements.
  There are two special features to the sale regarding site exchange and redevelopment which have raised concerns. I shall set out the safeguards and propose some changes. Neither proposal applies to service homes behind the wire, and that cuts out 11,000 houses straight away.
  Provided that whoever buys the houses initially keeps them and does not sell them on, the owner may propose exchanging the houses that we rent from him for a new site. If so, what he offers must be comparable or better. There are detailed contractual safeguards to ensure that.
  We make that comparison by reference to five broad categories backed up by 21 detailed criteria. That ensures that we shall consider a broad range of factors: the distance between the houses and the military facility, the distance to leisure facilities, schools and churches and, of course, the quality of the houses—right down to room sizes.
  Sir Jim Spicer: On comparability, my right hon. Friend will know that a large number of service families accept the need for additional expenditure to improve the properties. In respect of the exchange of properties—for example, if an estate is closed down and sold off—will there be a total guarantee of comparability so that service men and their families are not moved into houses that are inferior in any way to those that will have been improved out of the £100 million that my right hon. Friend mentioned?
  Mr. Portillo: Comparability will apply to houses as they are at the time of the proposed exchange. It will be measured by reference to the five broad criteria and the 21 more specific criteria that I set out just a moment ago. In response to suggestions from my hon. Friends, I have already added an extra provision that job opportunities for families should also be taken into account.
  That list of criteria makes it unlikely that many such exchanges will occur. It is a demanding list, it is tightly drawn up and it is binding. If for any reason, however, we cannot agree with the owner about whether our criteria are met, arbitration—based on the rules that we have set—provides a quick and inexpensive way to resolve the issue.

  963
  The second special feature allows the owner to propose, after 25 years, that a whole site should be returned to him for redevelopment. At that stage—who knows—that may be the best option from our point of view. The houses will be 25 years older than they are now. The armed forces may no longer wish to be in that location and it may be best to obtain new accommodation.
  If, however, we need those houses for operational reasons, we have the power to veto redevelopment. The Secretary of State of the day can rule it out by issuing a certificate. That is the ultimate safeguard. I simply do not recognise the legal advice quoted by the Opposition spokesman as I think it has no basis in fact.
  Sir Michael Shersby: At paragraph 49 of its report, the Select Committee drew attention to the concern of service families that a site exchange might involve a change of school for their children which could affect children who might be in the middle of a GCSE course, for example. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, in considering the scheme, he has at the forefront of his mind the quality of education for service families?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, and I shall make a specific point on that issue in a moment.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I ask the Secretary of State about arbitration on comparability? If there is arbitration, it will take place only because there is no agreement between the parties. Even if the criteria on which the arbiter is to make his decision are those laid down by the Ministry of Defence, it is at least possible that he will find against the Ministry, in which case any guarantee offered will be only as strong as the Ministry's case at arbitration.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being rather petty. We have a clear contract. The criteria are clear, numerous and specific, and have been drawn up by very good lawyers. There are contractual obligations. Nevertheless, of course it is possible that we may have a dispute. If we do, either we can take it to law, with all the expense and unpleasantness that that involves, or we can have the simpler system of appointing an arbiter. I believe that the second is the simpler and better way.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that over any contract there may be a dispute; no one can guarantee that that will not happen. So what we want is a good way of resolving such disputes. [Interruption.] I seem to have carried the hon. and learned Gentleman with me, and I am pleased about that.
  Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend has said that the houses will be of comparable or better quality, that schools and employment factors will be taken into account, and that an exchange would not require people to travel greater distances. Will he reassure the House that distance will be measured in terms of travelling time to and from the establishment to which the houses are linked?
  While my right hon. Friend is answering that question, will he also assure the House that if an exchange were made, the estate given up would not be fragmented into a number of much smaller units?
  Mr. Portillo: There is no question of fragmentation. We would measure distance according to how long it took people to arrive at their destination—that is, the military establishment where they work.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I want to press on to the end of my speech now, because if I do not it will be an abuse of the time of the House.
  As I said, I have valued the suggestions that I have received for improvements. I have already acted on a number, some of which were important to the chiefs of staff and some of which were made to me through Members of Parliament. Today I want to act on three more.
  The first two relate to the option for site exchange—the proposal that we might swap one site for another. The Army Families Federation has asked us to include among the criteria for comparing one site with another not only the closeness of schools to the new site but the quality of the schools near the site. Education is of huge importance to parents, and I shall happily add that criterion to the list.
  Secondly, there have been calls for consultation with those who might have to move. Such moves will be rare. And of course, moves to new accommodation in mid-posting already occur today, as we improve our use of the houses that we own. Moreover, it must be recognised that an exchange may take a long time to organise, and many families may have moved on anyway between the time of the proposal and the time of the change.
  None the less, all that having been said, it is certainly reasonable to ask the occupiers of the day their views on how the two estates compare, judged by the criteria. I undertake that we shall consult them. We shall wish to accept a new site only if it is as good as what we have, or better—and we shall check our view with the views of the service people who have been living on the original site.
  The consultation cannot be a veto, but it can be effective because it will be taken into account by the Government in reaching their view on how the estates compare. In the event of an arbitration, the occupiers' views will be given to the arbitrator and he will have to weigh them as a factor that he is obliged to consider. That is an important change. I have made it because I believe that it meets a point in the minds of several of my hon. Friends, and because it can be done without cutting across the chain of command.
  The third change is this. If after 25 years we receive any proposal to redevelop a whole site, we shall stipulate that the Government must be given a minimum of four years' notice, as well as two years' free rent, so that we can be sure to have the alternative houses ready in good time.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I was heading for home—but yes.
  Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend will know that I am not a soft touch. Despite approaches and persuasions, I have not yet removed my name from the early-day

  965
  motion. But will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, having been in close personal touch with him and with my hon. Friends the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and having had several meetings, I fully accept the new proposals and I am happy to support the Government?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's happiness is as nothing compared with my own. I told my hon. Friends that I would listen carefully to what was proposed. M y hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a specific proposal, and I was happy to accommodate that; it was the second proposal that I announced today.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: May I also thank my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, for having listened carefully to representations made by my hon. Friends and myself and, most importantly of all, to representations made by representatives of the service families.
  There is no doubt that the three additional measures that my right hon. Friend has just announced change the balance of the whole package considerably. I think that there was an implicit assurance in what he has just said, but will he give an explicit assurance that when the Government consider proposals for site exchanges, they will interpret and take account of the results of the consultation exercise in accordance with the criteria that he set out at the beginning of his speech—that is, that the Government's first priority in the matter is to ensure that the reasonable interests of service families are defended, and that the Conservative party will always take its stand on that subject?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that every word of my speech has been considered, and that all the words should be taken together.
  Mr. David Martin: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Army and the Royal Air Force have consultative bodies—the Army Families Federation and the Association of RAF Wives—to represent them when matters concerning families arise. Will he give sympathetic consideration to setting up a naval services families association, or something similar?
  Mr. Portillo: I have certainly benefited greatly from my contacts with the Army Families Federation and with the Association of RAF Wives. I have not come across any organisation representing Royal Navy wives. 'There is none, on a national basis, but if there were one I. should happily meet its representatives. Whether such an organisation should be set up is not properly a question for me, but I should certainly be happy to recognise and deal with one if it came into existence.
  Mr. John McWilliam rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Portillo: No, I think I must finish now, because otherwise I shall have taken too long.
  966
  We have devised a scheme that brings benefit to—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo indicated assent.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way.
  Mr. McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister not displaying grave discourtesy to the House by giving way only to his hon. Friends?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me. The Minister is responsible for his own speech, and for choosing whom to give way to.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask my right hon. Friend to address himself to one important point before he finishes? I understand that several organisations have expressed an interest in the purchase of the estate. Will he make it plain to the House that he will give strong preference to a British purchaser?
  Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to say that, so far as I am aware, all the bidders have a British element to them. None of them is exclusively British.
  Does the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who was so upset, want to intervene?
  Mr. McWilliam: Would the Minister care to enlighten the House on how large a British element there is in these bids?
  Mr. Portillo: No, because although details of the bidders have been published, it is not for me to say who they are.
  We have devised a scheme that brings benefits to our armed forces and their families and, for that reason, I have received the support of the chiefs of staff, for which I am extremely grateful. The sale underlines some lessons that we have learnt in 17 years of Conservative Government. For the Government to provide a service, they do not have to own that service. Indeed, time and again we have seen that Government ownership has led to inefficiency and poor service.
  I have no doubt that we can provide service families with the homes they need by renting them. Indeed, we can do it better than now. We will free our housing managers from the distractions of designing, building and trying to sell houses, and we will focus them on retaining and acquiring houses of good quality that are fit for service families.
  The Government have a clear political philosophy. We look to a dynamic private sector to provide most of our needs. That is not a matter of dogma, but is because the private sector does most things better and can help us to improve the quality of services. We believe that the Government should not own things where it is unnecessary, and that we should reduce public sector borrowing where we can. It is worth remembering that

  967
  people pay taxes in order to pay the interest on the Government's debt. That money could be better spent on other things.
  The policy that I have described today improves housing for the services, but it also cuts public sector borrowing and releases money. The fact that it does so is a point in its favour, not a point against.
  Over the coming years, I expect housing standards in our country to go on rising, and service families will want to share in that general improvement. As they see civilian standards rise, service families too will want something better. If we are to recruit and retain enough good people, we will have to provide more high-quality housing than we have in the past, and keep it in better condition.
  I am committed to improving the quality of life for service families, and this scheme gives me the chance to make rapid progress towards that goal. I believe in the values, ethos and traditions of service life. If I believed that this sale would undermine them in any way, I would be fighting it—not proposing it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on speeches for the rest of the debate.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: The Secretary of State's introduction was a syrupy eulogy of the service wives who had been browbeaten into surrender. Then we saw the ritualistically self-defensive party of defence yet again being holed below the water line. The bugles sounding surrender are amusing and deafening, and those who did not surrender two weeks ago have done so now. The family silver is gone—now the Government have got down to getting rid of the bricks and mortar.
  I have been a member of the Defence Select Committee since it began in 1979. In the 200 or so reports that we have produced, the Committee has borne witness to endless foul-ups that have become routine. I have seen many stupidities—indeed, I have seen them in superabundance—and I have seen party advantage elevated above public interest. It is unusual for all three to coalesce into one measure, as they have in this measure.
  The Government are proposing to transfer the ownership of the married quarters estate in England and Wales to the private sector in a series of long leases, and then rent back the accommodation by paying a guaranteed annual sum. Was that the only way to do it? Of course not. The Ministry of Defence has been the owner of housing for two centuries—not a very good owner, I might add. But the Government have been in charge for 17 years—long enough to put housing on a proper footing. It is an appalling indictment of the way in which they managed the housing estate that they must flog it off at the earliest opportunity available to the Secretary of State.
  If the management were inadequate, surely the Government should have given the organisation that they have just set up—the Defence Housing Executive—time to do its job. It is qualified to do so, and the Government should have allowed it to manage the housing estate effectively. If the Government wanted reform, why did they not proceed with the announcement that they made a few years ago to set up a new non-profit organisation to
  968
  take care of the ownership and management of the married quarters? Why did they not follow their 1993 manifesto commitment to set up a
  "non profit-distributing housing trust"?
  The Defence Select Committee said:
  "We are dismayed that an apparently arcane disagreement between the Treasury and MoD on the classification for statistical purposes of the proposed new Housing Trust should have obstructed a course of action embarked on some time ago. There is no evidence to suggest that the private sector would have been less willing to invest in the originally proposed trust than it will be in the recently proposed private company: merely that the transaction would be reflected as an increased PSBR figure rather than as a privatisation".
  The report continued by stating that there was
  "no significant public or parliamentary opposition to what the MOD had tried to do"
  after the 1993 manifesto commitment, and added:
  "We are not convinced that the only way to reduce the number of empty quarters and fund required improvements is by selling the bulk of the estate."
  The report noted that the MOD had already sold nearly 7,000 married quarters. If the Government want to get rid of the excess, they can carry on doing what they have done—selling the estates if it is necessary to do so.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As a lot of people outside will be watching, listening to and reading this debate, would it not be helpful if the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps his Front-Bench colleagues, would make clear that, under a Labour Government, there would be no question of military housing being sold as a unit to the private sector?
  Mr. George: I have no authority to give that assurance, but I trust that my Front-Bench colleagues will do so.
  Why was it necessary to sell the houses? Were they all elderly, or stock that should be got rid of? No. The Government clearly had other intentions. The Select Committee report said:
  "We note that the fact that the majority of the estate is in generally good condition was confirmed by an independent stock condition survey commissioned by MD to assist prospective purchasers."
  So the idea that the houses are being sold off because they are dilapidated is nonsense.
  Some £100 million given to the new authority set up by the Government would largely solve the problem. Why go through the pantomime of selling all the properties—potentially to the Nomura bank of Japan—when MOD Ministers should go to the Treasury and say, "We want £100 million to upgrade the accommodation because we owe it to our service men and their families"? The Minister of State told the Select Committee that
  "we do not just go to the Treasury and get £100 million out of them"
  but they should try to do so.
  Everyone knows that the real motive is not to improve MOD housing, but to improve the Tories' election prospects. The British service man has made many sacrifices, but rarely for such a base and undeserving group of people. Families who are to be turfed out of their properties, who may have some headbangers located next door or across the road and whose service ethos is shot through will remember who imposed the scheme upon them.
  Why is this scheme being carried out? It is bananas. "Surely," we are told, "the MOD will gain." But it will not. Although the MOD is to dispose of the assets,

  969
  the Treasury will get £1.5 billion. The MOD will retain the responsibility for managing, providing social services and maintaining the security of the estate, but it is getting nothing out of it. The gainers will be the Tory party and the property speculators. The MOD will not get the dosh, because it is going to the Treasury.
  The Government are the short-termers, whose eyes can rise only as far as the next election. They do not know or care what will happen in five or 20 years. It is "tax cuts now, stupid"—that is the cry. The morale of service men, already low, will plummet even further. This is being done unnecessarily.
  The MOD argues that the chiefs of staff endorse its action, but chiefs of staff who have endorsed a deterioration of defence expenditure from 5 to 2.6 per cent. of gross domestic product are unlikely to worry too much about 60,000 houses. Those who argue that this action has been endorsed by the Army Families Federation should note its statement that it was reluctantly withdrawing from public opposition. That is hardly a ringing endorsement.
  Mr. Portillo: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Defence Select Committee, being pretty insulting to the chiefs of staff. As the record of the debate will be read, I wanted to give him an opportunity to reconsider what he has said.
  Mr. George: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reconsider but I shall move on to the identity of the buyers. That is secret. I was not present when the Minister of State for Defence Procurement reluctantly divulged to the Committee who they were. I read details in the newspapers. It is all hush-hush. I received a video from one buyer today so perhaps it is not really so hush-hush.
  I am not xenophobic, but I do not like the idea of housing for which the MOD is responsible being bought by the Nomura bank. If the Japanese win contracts, many people will be insulted. I asked the Secretary of State whether the Japanese would be able to demand name changes on the housing estates, perhaps removing references to Montgomery or the Chindits. I was told that that was over the top but we must not forget what happened in County hall, whose new Japanese owners refused to permit British service men to honour their war dead until public pressure forced them to do otherwise.
  Our report was the best that could have been produced in the circumstances. We could have produced a much better one if we had had adequate information. Our conclusion used the words
  "We have sought to be satisfied".
  We did not say, "We have been satisfied".
  This action is being taken at the direction of the Treasury and, perhaps, of Smith square. It is being done for the wrong motives. The Government, those who supinely follow them, and those who will be dragooned into following them will reap the whirlwind. We have ample information about the threats against hon. Members who were seen to be opposing the Government. I hope that the Government will relent because I do not want service men to be inconvenienced and their family homes sold, potentially to foreign owners.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his speech and for his contribution to the Defence Select Committee, on which he has served for so long. On defence matters, he knows what he is talking about.
  My intervention will be brief because although the Defence Select Committee, which I chair, set out our preliminary conclusions on the sale of the married quarters estate in our sixth report of this Session, which was published this morning, it is, as the hon. Member for Walsall, South said, inconclusive. I apologise to the House for its interim nature. It is incomplete because much of the information that we would require to finalise it is commercially confidential: hence all the stars in some of the evidence-taking sessions. They do not refer to expletives deleted but to confidential information.
  We felt a duty to report in advance of the debate on the Floor of the House, which was bound to take place before the House rose for the summer recess. I pay tribute to our staff, to our special adviser and to the Committee, who have enabled us to meet the deadline and to have the report available for this debate. We felt that there would be such a debate, either because the other place would have approved the amendment to the Housing Bill or because the Opposition would use a Supply day for it.
  The debate in the other place was interesting. Most of the speeches opposed the Government's scheme for selling married quarters until there had been more consultation and a resolution of both Houses in favour of it. However, most of the votes were in favour of rejecting that proposition and letting the Government proceed as they planned. Surprise, surprise.
  Mr. McWilliam: I attended that debate and I have never seen the other place more crowded. They must have brought them out of the woodwork.
  Mr. Colvin: The House will have noted that with interest and a certain amount of agreement.
  The proposed sale of the married quarters estate has sparked off a lively debate in the House and outside—and quite unnecessarily. If the Government had handled the operation with more care, many of the anxieties of service men and women and their families would never have arisen. The House can agree on that.
  The married quarters estate has been badly managed and maintained. There is an urgent need for better management and an enormous injection of funds to upgrade properties. Further, there is no good defence reason for the MOD to own between £1 billion and £2 billion in bricks and mortar. The money to upgrade the properties was not going to come from the shrinking defence budget; it had to come from the Treasury. As we know, there are Treasury pressures on all spending Departments and the defence budget is most certainly not immune to those threats from the Treasury.
  We hope that the recently established Defence Housing Executive may improve management and maintenance—provided that it recruits the right people and is properly funded on an on-going basis. We also note that more than 2,700 quarters are surplus to requirements and 20 per cent. of the total stock of 60,000 dwellings is empty. In defence terms, in today's uncertain world, the turbulence of

  971
  service life and the pressures on service men and women—and, therefore, on their families—will increase. The quality of life necessary for recruitment and retention will be more difficult to achieve. We can also agree that the cohesion and ethos of the married quarters estate—the so-called patch—is a vital part of the welfare, and therefore the morale, of service men and women.
  The charges for accommodation for married quarters had fallen behind the market and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body had taken overdue but necessary action to bring them more into line with the charges for council housing, housing association dwellings and the private sector generally. We can also agree—and even Ministers might acknowledge this—that the Government have made a rod for their own back by their appalling timing in the setting up of the Defence Housing Executive, the introduction of new, increased accommodation charges through the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and by the announcement of the current proposal on Budget day, which made the insistence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this was not a Treasury-led operation rather incredible.
  As our inquiry continues, the Committee will need to be satisfied, first, that the concept of the sale is in the public interest; secondly, that the method of sale is appropriate; and, thirdly, that the needs and expectations of service families are properly protected and that defence interests are being respected. We already feel that the Defence Housing Executive needs to be strengthened if it is to do its job properly. It must be assured of an adequate allocation of cash each year from the proceeds of sales to guarantee the proper maintenance and repair of all MOD housing.
  The £100 million mentioned by Ministers works out at approximately £2,000 per dwelling. Bearing in mind that we have been told that upgrading is likely to include new kitchens, double glazing, new window frames and decorations, I cannot believe that £2,000 per dwelling is anything like enough. That money will be made available over five years and the House needs to be reassured that money will continue to be made available for that purpose beyond that period direct from the Treasury, rather than from the defence budget.
  Mr. Tim Smith: As my hon. Friend's report says that the majority of the stock has been well maintained and is in generally good condition, surely the money will be directed to the 19 per cent. of properties that are in poor condition?
  Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is true but there is bound to be an on-going demand. The money that has been promised will not go far to maintain and upgrade properties. I am sure that if his wife asked him for a new kitchen, she would not get one for £2,000.
  The House and service families need to be reassured that the sale will have little or no immediate effect on service families' housing other than to improve it, and that the safeguards recently offered by the Ministry of Defence in the site exchange option scheme and the absence of any link between housing charges and the sale will be accepted universally.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend heard the Secretary of State announce three specific proposals.
  972
  I think that the proposals are excellent. Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech, will he comment on those proposals?
  Mr. Colvin: For a ghastly moment I thought that my hon. Friend had changed his mind or had second thoughts. I am glad that he used that opportunity only to endorse what he has already said, and I agree with him.
  Whereas rents paid by service families will be fixed by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, I remind the House that rents paid in future by the Ministry of Defence to the purchaser of the married quarters estate is, we have been told, likely to be calculated on an assured shorthold tenancy basis. If that is so, have Ministers modified their projections of the rent that they will have to pay to the purchaser in the medium term? The House needs to be assured that if the rent that the MOD pays the purchaser is increased, the Treasury will fund that amount for at least 25 years.
  Any reader of our report will see that it raises as many questions as it answers. Until such time as the prospective purchasers' detailed proposals have been made public and assessed, we will not be in a position to reach a firm conclusion on the merits of the sale. Our Committee intends to re-examine this issue when all the necessary information is available.
  Our Committee was very impressed by the quality of the evidence presented to us. Undoubtedly the star of our sessions was Mrs. Cherry Milne, the chairman of the Army Families Federation. But I should also say that, considering the sticky wicket on which he was batting, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement carried his bat very well. I am pleased that he is in the Chamber today for a second innings.
  We must ensure that our service men and women and their families have the housing that they deserve, because we owe it to them. As they comprise the best forces in the world, they should have the best housing.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the speech of the Secretary of State had been set to music, certainly the early parts of it would have owed rather a lot to Vaughan Williams and to William Walton. As he came towards the end of his remarks, however, it was rather more reminiscent of the childhood ditty "10 Green Bottles". One after another, those who had so bravely held out before suddenly found themselves converted to his position, because of the nature of the concessions that he was able to make. If concessions on the proposals were necessary even in the course of this debate, they have been hardly indicative of the type of intellectual rigour that one would be entitled to expect—[Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) makes a lot of noise. He is not always listened to, and he must ask himself why he has been particularly successful on this occasion. It is less than a week since he was talking about matters being obscene and wholly unwarranted—relating to the vital consideration of car mileage. Possibly he will be more successful when he adopts rather less dramatic language, and perhaps he will bear that in mind in future.
  We would respect Ministers rather more if they were to come clean about the motive for this sale, because to argue that the motive is to improve conditions in married

  973
  quarters is disingenuous, and even offensive to intelligence. To argue that is to confuse objectives with consequences. Clearly, the motive is to reduce Government borrowing in the short term. As an objective taken on its own, it is highly desirable, but the question that we must ask ourselves is whether the price, in this case, is worth paying.
  What has been the first cost of the proposal? It has been the peace of mind of service families. It is no use saying now, "We, the Government, will have to make a better case," because the damage has been done. It is no use saying now, "They do not understand the nature of the proposals." Whose fault is it that service families do not understand the nature of the proposals, particularly as the proposals—as we have just seen—change daily?
  It is no use saying now, "We shall embark on an exercise of consultation." A very extensive consultation exercise was embarked on when the issue of homosexuality in the armed services was under consideration, and rightly so. Why was it that something that goes right to the heart and ethos of the armed services, such as the proposal to sell married quarters, was not subject in advance to that degree of consultation?
  The proposal's complications are a clear sign of its weaknesses. The Select Committee on Defence was unable to reach a conclusion—as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Committee's Chairman, said—because of the absence of detailed proposals from prospective purchasers. That is bad enough for the Committee, but it is much worse for the families, who, in the absence of such information, are not themselves able to reach conclusions about the merits and advisability—or otherwise—of the proposals.
  When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he described me as "petty". I shall not allow him an opportunity to withdraw that observation, as he allowed my fellow Defence Committee member, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), an opportunity to withdraw what he had to say about the service chiefs, but I shall repeat the point that I made to the Secretary of State: if the issue, ultimately, is arbitration, the Government cannot guarantee anything other than the strength of the case that they will make to the arbiter. There cannot be "guarantees"—in the strict sense of that word, or in the sense in which most service families understand it.
  There is a financial price to be paid by the Ministry of Defence. Do not take my word for that, but take the word of The Times of 11 July 1996, which referred to
  "the Government's short-term interests storing up a mess of trouble for the future"
  and stated that, over 25 years, the Government, in return for £1.6 billion now, might pay out more than £10 billion. That should certainly focus our minds on whether this proposal is worth it.
  If a shortfall arises between the rental paid by service families to the Ministry of Defence and that which is required to be paid by the Government to the purchaser, where will the money for that shortfall be found? It will be found in the defence budget. Any undertaking or "guarantee" to a contrary effect is simply meaningless.
  The proposal embraces the proposition that £100 million will be made available over five to seven years for improvements to the housing stock, to be
  974
  administered by the Defence Housing Executive. The executive already receives £40 million per year for that purpose. After five or seven years, however, what then? What benefit will service families receive from the sale then? It is not as if the £100 million will be a recurring figure; it is a once-and-for-all figure. Once it has been paid and spent, no doubt the Defence Housing Executive will be back to the same level of financial support for improvement that it currently enjoys.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I should like to explore the justification provided by the £100 million, as it seems to be the raison d'etre for the entire set of proposals. The fact is that 12,000 properties might be available. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that £10,000 a unit would currently be an excessive price for a house on the market, but does he realise that 12,000 times £10,000 is £120 million, which would enable the Government to take the £100 million and to put the £20 million excess where it is probably going in any event—into Tory party funds?
  Mr. Campbell: I am not sure that I am in accord with the final part of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, but I certainly believe that he mentioned something interesting in his intervention. It anticipates a point that I had planned to make. There are 2,700 houses for immediate release. If he is right and they would command a figure of £10,000 each—which is a pretty low figure—that would release £27 million in the first year. However, if the figure were £40,000, for example, £108 million would be released, which is almost exactly the sum that will be made available over five to seven years to the Defence Housing Executive.
  The Government have not properly explored the possibility of the sale of surplus houses and thereby the release of funds for the purpose of improvement and, at the same time, the issue of whether to use private management companies to quell their anxiety about quality of management. I do not come to this debate with a doctrinal bias in one direction or another. If the Government could demonstrate that using private management expertise would be a better way to manage the defence housing estate, I would support that. However, this proposal demonstrates their willingness to consider not the best means of managing and improving stock but the best means of raising £1.5 billion. That is why there are so many defects in the scheme.
  One of the principal defects is that the purchaser need take virtually no risk. Indeed, the scheme is so risk free that I am thinking of forming a private company to make an offer.
  Mr. George: You would not get the contract; you are British.
  Mr. Campbell: I am sure that I could call on some international support to assist me.
  Purchasers can buy those properties and get a market rent for them with a review every five years. Furthermore, they will receive a guaranteed annual payment from the Government with a guaranteed annual release of properties. They also have the prospect each year of realising the development potential of the houses released to them. Can one conceive of a better scheme for

  975
  purchasers? It is virtually risk free and, as a consequence, the Ministry of Defence will obtain an inadequate reward for the contract. The scheme is essentially wrong, but, if the Government want to adopt it, they should look for a much larger sum than £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion, because the nature of the contract that they will enter into is so favourable for the purchaser.
  Two features of this tawdry proposal cause me particular offence. The first is the veiled threat that, if it does not go through, the defence budget will suffer directly. If that is so—there has been the usual heavy briefing of the standard Sunday newspapers—it is an eloquent demonstration that the proposal is about raising cash, not about raising standards of accommodation. The second is the assertion that the proposal has become a battleground for the supporters of the rival right-wing contenders for the leadership of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Bowen Wells(Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman says rubbish. I see that the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) has joined us. I heard him make that point about a fortnight ago. He is a man of considerable intelligence and judgment; I cannot imagine that he would have made that point if he did not think that there was substance in it.
  Those two features unquestionably ensure that the conventional and customary expressions of support for the armed services and their families, which characterise debates of this kind and form part of the speeches of Conservative Members, have a distinctly hollow ring on this occasion.
  The Government survived—perhaps that is an unfair way to put it; they triumphed—on this issue in another place. The trading rooms of the merchant banks must have been deserted. Indeed, the pheasant-rearing pens of the estates of England must have gone without proper supervision, because people who had been a long time deciding to vote came and voted. The issue for the House this evening is whether it is willing to try to stop this proposal in its tracks. Originally, 67 honourable and, in this context, gallant Members signed the early-day motion, the terms of which are precisely reproduced in the motion before the House. That number has decreased to 20. All that is necessary for the proposal to be killed off is for those brave boys to join the Opposition parties in supporting the motion. By their votes we shall know them.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: It is no secret that I have been and am profoundly opposed to the structure of this scheme, although it would be churlish not to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced some significant concessions today. They are concessions of substance, not just presentation.
  The media are currently dominated by pictures of the unhappy situation in Northern Ireland. It is common for hon. Members on both sides of the House to pay tribute to the behaviour of the security forces. The armed forces are deployed much further afield, not least in the difficult and potentially dangerous conflict in Bosnia. It is easy for us to forget that our armed forces have been subject to an
  976
  unparalleled—except in the immediate aftermath of war—series of changes. They have had "Options for Change"; a mass of regimental amalgamations; "Front-line First"; and, in the past decade, a halving of the fraction of gross domestic product allocated to defence. Obviously, some of those changes were necessary because of the end of the cold war, but as the list goes on and on—each change was to be the last—so we risk undermining the ethos at the heart of our armed forces.
  Baroness Park said in another place that our armed forces were "becoming punch drunk". I remind my hon. Friends of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) last week about the threat of another set of defence cuts in the coming Budget. This debate is a timely reminder of the special duty that we owe not just to our armed forces but to their families. I feel that particularly strongly because I represent a garrison city. When I was canvassing for the 1992 general election, a little boy told me that that morning his father had been shot in the leg on the streets of Northern Ireland. The special duty that extends to our armed forces and their families is not just because they serve us in often dangerous and difficult conflicts but because they cannot speak for themselves. That gives us, as Members of Parliament, a special duty towards them.
  As this matter has been discussed in the public arena—it has at last come to Parliament—the message that has come across again and again is that the scheme has been misunderstood. That is not altogether surprising because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and other members of the Select Committee said, the details have been slow in coming forth. Initially, members of the armed forces knew about what was happening only from a terse signal that went out through the channels of command one way, and from a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I received a letter from the honorary colonel of a Territorial Army unit about the fate of the regular members of that unit in the build-up to this scheme, with the repackaging of housing that will take place as a result in the next few weeks. It said:
  "The Commanding Officer, half way through his tour, is being compelled to move to Biggin Hill to a quarter that just does not compare with one he lives in at present. This does at least allow his boy to remain on at the same school. The RSM has already been moved to Coulsdon to a very indifferent quarter. For a Warrant Officer the posting as RSM should be the peak of his career—this has been spoilt by this move. The Training Major is being short toured, partially to avoid a move of his family from Caterham."
  People have always been moved, often frequently, between tours of duty, but it is new for large numbers of service personnel to be moved about in the middle of postings and, as in this case, dispersed to meet pressures for sales.
  Built into the measure is a formula for the release of 600 houses a year—not automatically every year, but it must average 600 a year on a cumulative basis—which means that the process will continue, and will add to the turbulence experienced by armed forces personnel.
  The programme of site exchanges has caused considerable worry in the armed forces. We have heard some worthwhile movement on that today, and the two concessions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced will make a significant difference and go some way towards meeting the representations by the Army Families Federation.

  977
  I remain, however, profoundly concerned about what happens at the 25-year mark. When we consider the idea of exercising a ministerial veto via a certificate, we should bear in mind the fact that, at the 25-year mark, the developers are not required to provide alternative accommodation, although they will now have to give four years' notice. The certificates would present a problem if the developers wanted to take a large number of their sites, as all the sites would come up together.
  There are good reasons for thinking that the developers may well wish to take a large number of the sites. A high proportion of them are in southern England, in districts where there is development pressure. Many are close to training areas, which are not only vital for the armed forces but extremely attractive to wealthy civilian families, who want to live near genuinely unspoilt countryside.
  Ministers might be confronted by the prospect of trying to issue large numbers of ministerial certificates of operational necessity at the same time. It is unrealistic to believe that, in a judicial review, they could get away with doing so when Ministers have testified that that procedure would be used only "very rarely". We are building up a serious problem in a generation's time—one that worries me as someone who was commissioned 24 and a half years ago into Her Majesty's forces.
  We are also driving a wedge into the defence budget, as the ratchet increases every five years much faster than inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside explained that, so I will not cover the same ground.
  I am especially worried about the way in which the scheme will work in parallel with the findings of the Bett review, part of which has been welcomed in the interim statement from the MOD. The Bett review's vision is of far fewer of our future service families living on these married quarter estates and far more in owner-occupied accommodation. In practice, the officers will move off and the special situation of patch life, especially precious in the Army, where there are so many anxious young wives of those from other ranks who look to their officers' and senior non-commissioned officers' wives for leadership, will be progressively eroded. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says about progress on the Bett review.
  I want to end where I came in. Considering the difficult and demanding job that our armed forces are doing abroad, and given that a higher proportion of them are involved on operation and tours than at any time since 1945, except briefly during the Gulf war—a higher proportion even than during the Korean war—I believe that this scheme does not meet their wishes.
  I said at the beginning that it would be churlish not to take account of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has genuinely tried to listen. I came to this debate determined to vote against the Government—something that I have done on only one previous issue, and that was nine years ago. Because my right hon. Friend has gone quite some way towards meeting the most immediate problems in the scheme—the short-term ones—while still leaving in the scheme the serious problems that are much further in the future, I intend to leave open the possibility of abstaining.
  I shall listen hard indeed to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I shall listen especially hard to what he says on two subjects—the policy on accompanied service on
  978
  which the Bett review was so unhelpful, and the way in which the release of 600 houses a year is likely to impact on those people who are in the middle of tours.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I have no direct constituency interest in the matter before the House because there are no service married quarters in my constituency and, even if there were, they would be not be part of this deal as my constituency is in Scotland. I want to raise a point arising from that and from what the Secretary of State said at the outset.
  The Secretary of State said in ringing terms that the sell-off was the only way to secure good management of married quarters. He seemed to despair at the prospect of the Defence Housing Executive managing the married quarters estate efficiently. What kind of a vote of confidence is that for his newly appointed Defence Housing Executive, and where does that leave the 10,000 married quarters in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will continue to be controlled by, and remain the responsibility of, the Ministry of Defence? He cannot have it both ways. He seemed to be saying that his Department was incapable of running the estate properly—but those married quarters in Scotland and Ireland will remain under his control.
  I do not accept the Secretary of State's counsel of despair. I am convinced that it should be possible for the Defence Housing Executive to manage the estate properly. I am confident that it will be able to do so in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that it should be given an opportunity to do so in England and Wales.
  My interest in the debate arises from information gleaned as a member of the Defence Select Committee and from my visits to Army units under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, in which I am taking part this year. I have had the privilege of visiting units throughout England in recent months and I look forward to seeing more.
  I have to tell the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues that service men and women of all ranks are very worried about what is proposed. Some of them are suffering from a serious depression in morale, if I may put it that way, as a result of a range of problems. The Secretary of State knows about the problems of overstretch, turbulence—call it what you will. Fewer and fewer service men are expected to take on more and more duties, which means that life is difficult for our armed forces at present.
  I am left in no doubt from my conversations with service men and service women and their families in recent months that uncertainty about the future of their homes is pushing some of those people far too far. They are worried about rents. I heard what the Secretary of State said earlier, but I am afraid that the recent increase in rents is an alarming foretaste of what could follow. I heard his assurances, but there is no way of being certain that in future the Treasury will not put the Ministry of Defence under pressure to balance that account by increasing rents, and he should know that better than most, as a former Treasury Minister.
  People are worried about the risk of being moved even more than they are at present from one quarter to another, as other hon. Members have said. People are worried about the integrity of the service housing patch. Those points were mentioned repeatedly.

  979
  The Secretary of State gave a welter of assurances and concessions. We have heard them in recent weeks; we heard them again tonight. They can be summed up as the Secretary of State saying, "Trust me; it will be all right on the night"—or in 25 years or whenever. "As long as I can get the money into the Treasury coffers by the end of this year, it will be okay as time goes on."
  The Secretary of State showed a touching confidence in legal arbitration and did not dwell on the costs that are likely to be incurred when we get embroiled in such legal arbitration between a future Ministry of Defence and lawyers acting on behalf of the new owners, if the sale goes ahead. He cannot get away with that. The real problem, however, is that the assurances are largely meaningless. The package is unworkable and unenforceable. With the best will in the world, the assurances that the Secretary of State gave tonight and in recent weeks cannot be fulfilled in future.
  The Secretary of State should bear in mind the fact that he will not even be here next year. Someone else will inherit this fundamentally flawed package. It is unworkable now and it will never become any more workable.
  The Secretary of State must not be allowed to get away with creating a bed of nails for service families. He will get brownie points from his colleagues, because he will get some ready cash into the Treasury this year, but service families and taxpayers will be left with a whole range of problems in the future. The House should not let him do this. He is being fundamentally dishonest.
  I refer to a more serious point concerning dishonesty. The Government's amendment refers to support for the package from the chiefs of staff. I have trawled the papers that have been made available to the Defence Select Committee on the issue, and the nearest thing that I can find to a reassurance is a letter in which one of the chiefs of staff—I shall not embarrass him by naming him—says that the benefits outweigh the risks. That is the sort of endorsement that one might expect to get on one's driving licence if one was caught driving too fast—but it is not a ringing endorsement of the package. It is dishonest of the Government to hide behind the chiefs of staff in that way. This is a bad political decision—it is bad for service families and taxpayers—and the House should not allow the Government to get away with it.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome the courteous tone of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his comments on service families and his genuine concessions, particularly about consulting the families concerned—that is a real concession. Some people in the Tea Room say that early-day motions do not have any impact on the parliamentary scene. Over the past few weeks, I have seen Ministers and Whips scurry round my colleagues with suggestions polite and not so polite, and my impression is that early-day motions have a significant say in the workings of the Palace of Westminster.
  I have listened to my right hon. Friend, and I have tried to work out how I shall vote this evening. I thought that he was busy trying to make a bad scheme better. He did not convince me that he had come up with a "Top of the Pops" scheme that I should admire and rush round my constituency supporting. I admit that I came in on the
  980
  issue a little late in the day. I met a senior general at a social function and said, "There is a row on this issue. Does it matter?" For a good five minutes, he pointed out that in his command it was a serious issue, that morale was low and that he hoped that the scheme would be withdrawn in the House of Commons before too long.
  I listened to an excellent debate in the other place the other day. Lady Park spoke with great vigour, eloquence and distinction. I was in the armed forces for 10 years in the Light Infantry battalion, and I pricked up my ears when I heard the speech of Lord Bramell—a field marshal; a Green Jacket; a man who has worked his way through the defence field and a man who understands the thinking in the Ministry of Defence.
  I differ from the Front Bench in that I have not yet heard sufficient argument for the overthrow of the married quarters system, as we have known it in the United Kingdom and in Germany since the war. In most other countries, the armed forces own the quarters—they are organised and run by the Government. We should not be ashamed of the fact that we have owned the married quarters for many years, and we have to be careful about taking privatisation too far.
  I was a little cool when privatisation was first suggested, and I have voted on every privatisation measure. I had some reservations about selling off nursing homes—an issue that is not entirely relevant to what we are discussing tonight. On the whole, privatisation has been a great success. However, I hope that we are not now going to embark on a programme of petty privatisation—looking for small bits and pieces of the national estate to privatise, and I am not just thinking of Greenwich. This is a clever wheeze from the Treasury—it has been around for four years, and many of my right hon. Friend's predecessors had it put in their in-trays and decided not to take it up.
  We have to hear good arguments about why the whole system of married quarters, as we know it, needs to be changed in this way. I am concerned that if the change proceeds—perhaps even now there is a paper sitting in the Treasury—there will be plans for the privatisation of the sports facilities of the barracks and the bases: the football pitches, the running tracks, the swimming pools and the pistol ranges. Treasury officials could put up a case similar to that on the married quarters; they could say that if we sell off all these bits and pieces, we shall raise a significant sum at a time when the Treasury desperately needs it. I am not unsympathetic to the Treasury's point of view.
  A base or a barracks has a certain integrity. I am not happy at the thought of the commanding officer's house at the Special Air Services in Hereford, or a rather more salubrious house belonging to the colonel of a Guards battalion in Windsor, or the house of the colonel of the Marine Command in Plymouth, being sold off to one of these grand international conglomerates. I do not think that our constituents will say that selling off married quarters to these large, foreign industrial concerns is a wonderful political move.
  We have to use our judgment in this regard. I am not convinced that over the past 25 years we have had a copper-bottomed scheme. I do not doubt that the Ministers have the best of intentions, but I do not believe that the Ministry of Defence and whoever it may be in five, 10 or 15 years' time will be able to impose the controls

  981
  on the developers that we have been hearing about tonight. The developers are in there because they want to cherry-pick—of course they want the commanding officers' quarters, and it would be naive of us to think that they did not. They want the site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), which overlooks the Solent, because it is a desirable property. There will be judicial reviews, and we shall move into a messy area. The Ministry of Defence, with the best will in the world, will not be able to hold to the firm intentions that were honourably stated from the Front Bench tonight.
  One of the things that the Whips love to say as they scurry around is, "Of course you have to support this—we need £1.6 billion." That is not a serious argument. As Back Benchers, we are responsible for controlling the Executive, particularly in the financial sphere. We are allowed to comment in public and to have views on which particular scheme should raise money for the Treasury—for example, whether the poll tax should raise money for local government. It is a cheapjack argument to be told that we must vote for this at all costs, because that large and important sum can be funded only in that particular way.
  Another argument went roughly like this: we do not believe that the Ministry of Defence, when the moment comes, will choose to put money into quarters rather than into weapons systems—the Ministry of Defence is so incompetent that it has not realised that it has to allocate time and resources to welfare as well as weapons. I do not believe that for a moment—it is a basic function of the Ministry of Defence; it is a basic subject of command. Any general who says, "Spend more money on weapons and ignore morale," is no good and ought to be sacked.
  I am enormously conscious of the chopping and changing that have hit our armed forces in recent years. Two years ago, I did not support the Government when the defence White Paper came before the House because I believed that we had cut too far and without justification. We should pay particular attention to the service families on whom we rely so much at this time and who are suffering directly from the problems of overstretch. It is not that long ago when naive people spoke about the British Army pulling out almost totally from Northern Ireland.
  If we are honest about our duty to those individuals, we should ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to withdraw his scheme tonight pending further consultation. After careful deliberation, I remain committed to the wording of the early-day motion. I believe that it has already done a good job of work, and there is more mileage in it yet.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I shall not detain the House long. It is a pleasure to follow the measured and lucid speech by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I commend him for the courage that he displayed in making his final commitment.
  It is easy to get lost in the detail about billions of pounds here, hundreds of millions there and so many thousand houses. I do not suppose that we shall win the argument tonight, but I wish to clarify the situation so that people in the big wide world will understand the nonsense that is being proposed.
  It is rather like my owning a house in south London that is worth about £150,000. I do not own such a property, but, if I did, I could put it on the market and
  982
  allow someone to buy it for about £100,000. In order to persuade someone to purchase my £150,000 property for £100,000, I would tell him, "Look, I shall spend £6,000 immediately doing it up and making it top grade. Having done that, I shall keep it in top condition for the next 25 years."
  Mr. Mike Hall: "And I will pay you."
  Mr. Cook: Exactly. On top of that, I would promise to pay market rent on the property until I ceased to use it—however long that might be. I suggest that if everyone operated in that way, we would be in lunatic asylums. It does not make sense in the case of my single property or in the case of the Government's many properties. We have talked about the need to house the troops properly. No one suggests that we should not do that: that is how it should be.
  What will happen in the future? What will happen when we withdraw from Germany, Cyprus, Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands, as we are bound to do? Will we be in the same position then as is Russia today? Will service men and women return to this country to find that they have nowhere to live? Will they be housed in tented accommodation, regardless of the climate? That is a distinct possibility if we go down this route. Can we expect a developer, who is responsible for the properties and who fills the houses with civilian tenants over time, to change his pattern of recruiting tenants in order to make way for troops who are returning to their homeland? It simply does not make sense.
  We have been asked to believe that the defence chiefs of staff accept the proposals—an acceptance that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) called into question. "Acceptance" is not the word used by the ranks of the defence force that I have encountered—I refer not to corporals, senior non-commissioned officers or middle-ranking commissioned men, but to those of the rank of air commodore, lieutenant-colonel and commander in the Royal Navy. They are all seriously concerned about the matter.
  We are told that service families will be mollified. That is so ironic, it is almost insulting. When some service families first made their protestations, questions were asked about whether they were qualified to represent the views of all families throughout the forces. I considered that an insult at the time, but it is even more insulting for the Government to turn round now and say that they will accept some form of consultation. The right time for consultation was long before the proposals were put on the table.
  If this Government had been in power in 1940, we need not have relied on the Spitfires, the Hurricanes or the men and women who kept them aloft so splendidly in defence of this country. We could simply have waited for the German Chancellor to sail across the channel with a bag of reichsmarks and then trotted happily to the bank. The proposals before the House tonight have little to do with improving estate management and much more to do with the logic of the pawnshop.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: This debate was billed in advance as a great clash of the gladiators over an issue of high principle. There were predictions that it would end in a photo-finish in the Division Lobbies tonight. However, the debate is coming to an end not with a bang, but a whimper. In fact, there are two whimpers—the whimper of a Back-Bench revolt fizzling out, and the whimper of an Opposition who are retreating with their tail between their legs because their transparently opportunistic ploy in the form of a Supply day motion has failed. It deserves to fail ignominiously.
  It is right that the motion should fail, first and foremost, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an excellent speech. He announced some important new concessions and clarifications that meet virtually all the concerns about the scheme that were expressed sensibly during constructive discussions in recent weeks.
  Secondly, the motion should fail because the facts of the scheme speak for themselves. The message is clear: the glory of the scheme is that it is in the interests of both the service men and the taxpayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members have tried to conjure up all manner of hobgoblins, foul fiends and spirits from the vasty deep to justify their opportunistic Supply day motion. In the end, their grievances boil down to two highly fallible claims: first, that the scheme is somehow a threat to what is known in the jargon as the "service man's patch"; and, secondly, that it is a rotten deal financially.
  I shall meet both those doubtful claims head on. The Secretary of State said—far more eloquently than I can—that the integrity of the married quarters patch is guaranteed and will be protected. Under the scheme, the purchaser will have no power to break up the patch, to move non-service families on to the patch, to slice up the patch, or to cherry-pick portions of it. Phantom arguments have been conjured up about problem families being moved into defence housing or security being lifted. They are complete and utter codswallop—old Canterbury tales. Nevertheless, we have dealt with those claims very efficiently.
  The purchaser of the married quarters estate will not be able to call the shots as to which houses will be retained for service occupation and which will be released from the patch. That management function is exercised today by the Defence Housing Executive, and it will continue to exercise it into the future. It is subject to the overriding ministerial veto that maintains the paramountcy of service housing in order to meet operational requirements. There is no threat to the patch.
  I turn now to the claim that the scheme is a bad deal financially. That does not stand up to serious examination. I shall speak personally for a moment. During my short life as a bird of passage in the ministerial aviary, I occupied two perches and I adopted two viewpoints—both of which are relevant to this debate.
  First, for two years I had the honour to serve as a Minister of State for Defence, and, in that capacity, I believed it my duty to safeguard the interests of British service men. It was crystal clear that the defence married quarters estate had suffered over the years from under-investment, inadequate management and poor maintenance.
  984
  Time and again, on visits to military bases, it was possible to see those detrimental policies reflected in physically poor conditions such as leaking roofs, crumbling walls and far too many empty houses. The huge plus of this scheme is the introduction of much better professional management: over the next few years, £100 million will be spent on improving all those poor-quality houses to grade 1 accommodation standard. That is an enormous bonus, as service men on the estates will recognise when the scheme is explained to them properly.
  From the viewpoint of a Minister of State—or, indeed, a Defence Minister of any kind—I can see that the scheme is in the best interests of service men. It is no surprise that the chiefs of staff, whose integrity should not be stupidly questioned, have come out clearly and said, "Let the service voice be heard. Let it be said, plainly and clearly, that this scheme has been supported down the line by the chiefs of staff, because it is in the best interests of service men."
  Mr. Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman says that the service chiefs of staff have supported the proposal unequivocally. Has he any evidence to support that?
  Mr. Aitken: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the exact words of Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, Chief of the Defence Staff, who expressed such support in clear and explicit language only a few days ago.
  As for the financial deal, let me correct—on an historical basis—a misstatement of fact by, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), which has run through the argument in recent weeks. I refer to the claim that this is a Treasury-led scheme—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No, I will not. I am still replying to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I can speak with some authority and some historical knowledge, because I was—as it were—officer of the watch when the scheme went to the Treasury. I assure the House that the revelation that it would save the public sector borrowing requirement more than £1 billion came as a pleasant surprise to the Treasury. It was a surprise because the scheme had originally been service-led inside the MOD, for the housing reasons that I have mentioned, and had not featured as a possible cost-saving measure in the "Front Line First" or defence costs study arguments.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No. Time is short.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No. As I have said, time is short.
  Let me repeat that, not having heard that it was a possible cost-saving measure, the Treasury was pleasantly surprised to learn that, in its new form, the scheme would save the PSBR more than £1 billion. That was a double whammyrcontribution>: good news for both service men and taxpayers.

  985
  That brings me back to the Opposition. We are debating a classic old Labour Opposition day motion. The Opposition defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), presented himself as the service man's friend, wearing his heart and CND badge on his sleeve, and proclaiming that he was speaking up for service men; but his weapons in the debate have been "Down with better housing for service men" and "Down with a reduction of £1.5 billion in the PSBR". That is not old Labour; it is neanderthal Labour. It might be called aboriginal Labour, for the weapons that the Opposition have picked for today's debate have turned out to be boomerangs. The motion deserves to be defeated resoundingly.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I am very glad to have been called. I apologise to the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for not having been present for their opening speeches.
  The right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) said that we were debating an old Labour motion. I remind him that the motion with which the House was originally presented was tabled by 65 Conservative Members, including a number of those who sat near him nodding as he spoke. This is not a Labour motion but an old Conservative motion, tabled by Members of Parliament who wanted to do what would be best for service families.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House who table early-day motions have a distant ambition that they will be discussed at an early day, and we must often contain our disappointment at the delay in discussion of the matters involved. I hope that the 65 Conservative Members who signed the early-day motion will now congratulate my hon. Friends on bringing the early day forward so conveniently, enabling us to discuss a matter that was so important to them only three weeks ago. The question before the House today is not whether Conservative Members will vote for a Labour motion, but whether they will vote for their own motion.
  My constituency contains many service families, and Plymouth contains more than 3,000 service quarters. I use the word "quarters", because those who occupy the accommodation have no choice about the location. They are not ordinary tenants. They cannot choose their furniture, or even what they plant in the garden. They are allocated their quarters for the period during which they, or their husbands, are serving in the armed forces.
  As has been said, those families need to feel secure, especially when the menfolk are working away. This deal is bad for service families and disastrous for the taxpayer, and in isolated pockets of the country, which nevertheless constitute significant areas, it will be bad for small home owners.
  Without doubt, to make the deal work, service families will be encouraged to be shunted around from one place to another. The developers will eventually want to maximise profits: they will want to clear out lucrative estates that could easily be sold, and put them on the market. The scheme cannot operate in any other way. As the Minister and the Secretary of State know, there is no question of operating mixed estates, with service and civilian families living side by side. Indeed, the Minister of State for
  986
  Defence Procurement has made that point. Service families will be cleared out of estates so that they can be sold as cheaply as possible.
  There is a clear relationship between the sell-off and rent increases in the coming years. Earlier this year, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), the Secretary of State revealed that rents for service married quarters would increase by between 10 and 25 per cent. this year. In the same answer, he said that rents would continue to increase over the next few years until they reached the same level as civilian rents for surrounding houses.
  Mr. Portillo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jamieson: The Secretary of State shakes his head; I hope that, when he winds up, he will tell us just what those rent levels will be. I calculate that they will be two or three times as high as they are now.
  The Secretary of State will also know that, earlier this year, when I asked whether service families would be given any recompense for the extra rent that they would pay, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replied:
  "We do not propose to introduce any additional financial assistance to compensate for the rises in service accommodation charges."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 68.]
  This is a tax on service families. They will pay the price of the sell-off, so that the Conservative party can use tax cuts as a weapon in the election.
  That was confirmed by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who denied what had been said by the Minister. The Minister said that the Government's proposal was intended to provide better homes for service families, but the hon. Member for Bexleyheath—who presumably listens to his Whips—told us that the Whips were going around saying that they needed the money for tax cuts for the election. That is the truth. Service families will pay for the folly of this sell-off in years to come: they will pay for the extra money that is needed to lease back the properties. They will pay the £100 million a year that will be needed in the first few years as a tax on their income.
  Each year, in my city of Plymouth, the MOD declares up to 80 service families homeless by evicting them at the end of their tour of duty. Will homes be available for men and women who have served their country but no longer have a home because the Ministry of Defence has evicted them? Will those homes continue to be available? Will developers take on the responsibility to put a roof over those people's heads? The MOD is not taking on the responsibility, and I see no prospect of a private developer doing so.
  We hear that there are about 20,000 empty homes. Why does the Secretary of State not do what the Conservative party set out in its 1992 election manifesto? It was one of the few matters on which the Labour and Conservative parties agreed. The Conservative party stated that it would make these homes available for social housing—for rent—to get people off housing waiting lists.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I shall read the 1992 Conservative manifesto to the hon. Gentleman, because he has got it wrong. The relevant passage reads:
  "We will set up a task force—headed by an independent chairman—to help bring empty government residential properties back into use. These will either be sold or let on short term leases to those in housing needs."
  We are selling them.
  Mr. Jamieson: May I assist the Minister by reading on? The Conservative party manifesto claims that the party's policy
  "will enable us to house more people on the waiting list".
  That is what the Conservative party stated in its manifesto. The Government are now denying that claim by the action that they propose to take.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: I will not give way again to the Minister. He will be able to take up my argument when he responds to the debate on behalf of the Government. He will have the opportunity to deny what is set out in the Tory party's election manifesto.
  The Minister knows that, in my constituency, 147 houses have recently been released to a housing association. The lets have gone to Plymouth city council so as to do what the Conservative party stated in its manifesto—to take people off the housing waiting list and put decent roofs over their heads. The Minister will be aware that 50 per cent. of those homes are for former service families so that they can have some security once they have left the services, or because they have been evicted by the MOD.
  The Government's proposals are bad for service families. The price of the sell-off will be met over many years by a tax on those families' homes and incomes. The proposals are bad news for local housing markets, because in certain areas a flood of cheap houses will suddenly come on to the market. House prices will be depressed, and that will have a special impact on home owners who are in negative equity.
  The Minister knows that that has happened already in some areas. It has happened, for example, at RAF Sculthorpe and RAF Wittering, where groups of houses were sold. House prices in those localities suddenly plummeted. In one instance, three-bedroom bungalows came on the market at £10,000 each. What price did the taxpayer receive for those homes? We are seeing a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money, and that is why Opposition Members will be voting for the motion. We urge Conservative Members, whose motion, in effect, we are discussing this evening, to have the courage to vote in accord with their original thoughts.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: In one sense at least we are complying with the motion, by debating it. The motion suggests that we should have more consultation. It suggests also that we should have debates in both the other place and this place. A debate has taken place in the other place, and there has been considerable consultation over the past few weeks. Indeed, there has been more than we could have anticipated. Perhaps it would have been
  988
  better if we had had that consultation earlier, but, in any event, consultation has taken place. In addition, we have a Select Committee report and an endorsement by the chiefs of staff.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he has consulted many Conservative Members at least over the past few weeks and taken on board many ideas. I recognise that he has implemented those ideas that he felt able to take on board.
  I have no problem with the idea of a prudent Government considering their assets and deciding whether they can sell some off to the benefit of the taxpayer or to the benefit of public matters generally. In that sense, the proposed sell-off is not a privatisation. Nor is it a sale and lease-back. It must not be, for if it were, it would appear on the wrong side of the public accounts. Instead, it is an asset sale, but one that will ensure an outflow of funds in the form of rent from the public sector for at least the next 25 years. I have no problem with that, either.
  We must be clear, however, about who is selling the assets and who will be responsible for the outflow of funds. If it is the Treasury that owns all public property in the final analysis, it is right that it should have the benefit of those assets. I suggest that, at the same time, the Treasury should take on board responsibility for the rent that will be paid out over the next 25 years. We know that that rent will come from other than the defence budget. It will be made clear in the Red Book that it does not form part of the defence vote. If it were, that would in another way be a further cut in the defence budget.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister responds, I hope that he will give us further assurance that the Treasury will do rather more than simply recognise the outflow of funds and show it to be separate from the defence vote. If in the next two or three years we find that the defence budget is having to take on board some of the costs of the rent, that will negate at least some of the £100 million that will be made available by the Treasury to upgrade quarters over the next five, six or seven years. We cannot have the money twice. Either the money will be used to upgrade quarters or it will be used to contribute to the rent that will have to be paid to the developer who owns the estate.
  If we are to ensure that the defence vote is not to receive a cut even before the public expenditure round is complete, we need more reassurance that the Treasury, not the Ministry of Defence, will pay the rent over the next 25 years. The size of the defence budget has decreased considerably over the past five years. The planned total after "Options for Change" has been reduced by £5 billion when the figure for this year is compared with what it was planned to be five years ago. Over the same period, the increase in the social security budget in cash terms exceeds the total sum spent on defence this year.
  I strongly believe that, where possible, we must protect the defence budget. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will manage to protect the defence budget more effectively this year than perhaps his predecessor did when he was having to fight his case against the then Chief Secretary, who was none other than my right hon. Friend. We have cut defence spending in real terms and cash terms, and more than we should have done, in my view, over the past five years.

  989
  There is a human side to these matters. I very much welcome the improvements to the scheme—I do not call them concessions—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned this evening. They will go some way towards alleviating the fears of service men that they will be ejected from their homes for reasons other than service ones. I am certain that the improvements will do much to reassure them.
  I sincerely hope also that the reassurances that we have received about what will happen to the estate during the 25 years and afterwards will be correct, because I strongly believe that, into the foreseeable future and well after the 25-year period, we will need a stock of quarters to house our service men. I shall go further than that, and say that it will probably be even more important in future to provide them than in the past, because, if we are to recruit the right people, we must look after not only their equipment and their weapons but their welfare as well.
  The motion, the debate and the consultation have been a very positive exercise. It has meant that this matter has been dealt with publicly, as it should be because this is a large asset sale, and many of the problems have been overcome.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: I have a constituency interest, as in my constituency we have what are known as tobacco houses, which used to house Army personnel from 47th area support group of the US Army following their intervention in the war in 1942. The houses were built some time afterwards and were paid for from the income from tobacco, which is why they were called tobacco houses.
  One hundred and nine of the properties were handed over to the Ministry of Defence in June 1992, when the Americans declared that they had no future use for RAF Burtonwood, but 60 were in a poor state of repair and were not fit for habitation, so much investment was needed to make them habitable by service personnel—in terms of energy conservation, double glazing and cavity wall insulation.
  In a Ministry of Defence answer last year, we were told that there are only 24 empty properties in my constituency, which must mean that a large number of units have been brought back into use by the MOD. It must have spent a great deal of money in the past four years to bring those properties up to scratch, which will now be sold off over the heads of the residents to a private company. It is a particularly bad deal.
  Another problem is that RAF Burtonwood is a discrete estate. The estate, which contains 109 units, has a tennis court, play area and bowling green. The roads and the sewers are not up to standard, and the drains run under the houses, so there will be many problems for years to come. When the MOD sells those properties to a private developer, what will happen to the continuing liability? I am very concerned about that.
  There is a huge problem in my constituency, because RAF Burtonwood, which was declared surplus to requirements in June 1993, is now being used as a private storage and distribution depot. It is the largest single above-floor warehouse space in the whole of Europe, and it is being used by the private sector at very low rent. That is causing much concern to my constituents who live in and around the air base. As well as being the local
  990
  Member of Parliament, I am one of those residents. The MOD's privatisation programme will adversely affect my constituency.
  The deal before the House is a bad one. We will get short-term gain and long-term pain in terms of what will have to be done and the cost of the decision. It is obvious that the taxpayer will be worse off in the long run. We are told that the deal is popular with armed forces personnel who occupy the houses, but why do we not ask them?
  When properties were transferred from Warrington new town development corporation to local housing associations, tenants were asked in a ballot who they wanted to become their new landlord. When local authorities want to transfer their houses into the private sector, into housing action trusts, each tenant is given the choice about who their new landlord should be. If this is such a good deal for Army personnel, the Secretary of State, before he does anything else, should consult each and every member of the armed services who lives in these premises to find out their views. If we believe in tenant choice, Army personnel should be given the same choice as that given in the public sector.
  This deal is bad for the taxpayer. It is bad for Army personnel. It should be rejected by the House this evening.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote last November to all tenants of Ministry of Defence housing, I wish that we had had a debate such as this, as it would have set the scene for a well-informed debate nationally about the issue. That is my greatest regret.
  My position six months ago approximated closely to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). It has taken me some six months to come to terms with the issues. People have, quite rightly, praised the Army Families Federation and the way in which successive generations of Army and other service families have followed the flag around the empire, the Commonwealth and the world on peacekeeping and peace-enforcing missions, but they should never underestimate the fact that it is not just the wives, families and spouses who are concerned about this; the men in the front line are equally concerned.
  Hon. Members who have the honour to represent constituencies with a large number of service men and women and civilian support staff recognise the depth of feeling on the issue. The Army Families Federation has not been representing the views of only a handful of wives. It has been doing an extraordinarily good job. Those of us who have a regular case load of MOD issues will recognise that the Federation persists. I have had a number of meetings and many telephone calls over the past six months with the Federation and other individuals. They have raised many issues that have improved the scheme to the point where, as one of the chiefs of staff said, the scheme that we now have is not the scheme we started with. It is remarkably improved.
  Army wives and families who criticise the leadership of the Army Families Federation should know that, of the 10 points that were put to me on 5 July by Cherry Milne, the Federation's president, eight have been addressed and are discussed in depth in the Select Committee's report.

  991
  One is the subject of correspondence with Ministers. Another, on the question of Abbey Wood and housing, is one to which we can return at another time.
  Many of my hon. Friends will do well to listen to the debates that follow this one. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who has, over a decade and more to my certain knowledge, because I have often been beside him, pursued the interests of Army families, as well as the structure of the Army itself. Our constituents have often been in touch with us over the years, but I had a telephone call only this weekend from a retired Colonel, who asked all the right questions and outlined the problems. I just wished that I had been able to divulge to him—I did not, of course—the contents of the Select Committee's report. He will be able to read the debate, as will others.
  One of the greatest misconceptions is that the current situation is cost-free. The fact that these huge assets are tied up is expensive for the taxpayer and for public service investment. We do not need sterile arguments about what will happen, and I have heard some utter drivel spoken tonight. We need to get down to the real problem about the quality of housing. I am most concerned about the small percentage of housing that is inferior. It appears to me that much of it is in my constituency, but I am sure that, in reality, it is spread around.
  If we are going to talk about realities, about Bulford, Larkhill, and the sort of quarters that our service families put up with, the fact that an extra £100 million will be spent over five to seven years, in addition to the £40 million that has already been spent, must be good news. I particularly welcome the concession on schools, which is very important to families. They move around very loyally, so education becomes ever more important.
  I welcome the many changes that have been made. I look forward to a boost in the Defence Housing Executive, which we can confidently expect. The last thing that we and Army families want is yet another review of the Army and its functions, as proposed by the Labour party and others. To the Johnny-come-latelys who have entered the debate, I simply say that, for those of us who have followed this issue over many years, this is a good deal for Army families as well as front-line forces, and I shall support the Government tonight on behalf of my constituents.
  6.39 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I shall be brief. My first point is that the experience of service families has not been positive. They have been stretched to the limit by the Government's defence cuts, which have meant families spending more time apart. It is therefore no wonder that Army wives and others have done something which is very rare for them—they have spoken out publicly because they feel badly treated by the Government.
  Secondly, it is clear that the policy has been Treasury driven. It is no coincidence that the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) moved from the Ministry of Defence to the Treasury after he had been responsible for decisions that affected my constituency and which led to the creation of surplus MOD property and its sale.
  Thirdly, people have been badly treated. I cannot quote the communication in full, but I was contacted by a Mr. and Mrs. Trotter. Mr. Trotter served with the Royal Navy
  992
  for 22 years—in the Gulf, Bosnia and the Falklands—and is desperate for help, which he was not receiving, in trying to find suitable accommodation for his retirement. Another constituent—a Mr. Anderson—came to see me when the rent for his MOD property was doubled and he was told that he and his family had to find other accommodation by the end of this month.
  Fourthly, in Scotland the situation is different for legal reasons and because of the sale of surplus property at Rosyth owing to the Government's defence cuts. The situation there has been marked by obsessive secrecy. I have written to the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, asking why they have apparently made a deal with Home housing association, which has no property north of the border, and why they did not invite other Scottish-based companies to bid, but I have been given no information and no clear answers.
  In view of the plight in which the Government have placed so many service families, I hope that there will be all-party support for the Labour party's motion.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: This debate has rightly focused the House's attention on the vital role played in the life of this country by the armed forces and on the invaluable support given by their families. As we know, that is inextricably tied in with the community spirit of their estates and the support provided by their being surrounded by friends who know the strains and stresses of service life, especially in view of the regrettable recent increase in tension in Northern Ireland. The real question is whether the proposed sale adds or detracts from that. In our view, it surely undermines the system, which is why I believe that the Select Committee's report said that the jury is still out. It is also why the matter has aroused such cross-party concern.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence said that the Committee's report raised as many questions as it provided answers. I must say that the Secretary of State's speech did not provide those answers, especially not to some of the important questions. For example, it is not clear how much it will cost to bring the estate up to grade one standard. Although pressed, the Secretary of State did not specify the other public sector investments for which he said the money would be available.
  The concern raised by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) was mirrored in The Economist, which recently stated:
  "Should the Government be forced to withdraw the privatisation, Mr. Portillo would be hard pushed to stop the Treasury deducting the missing money from his budget. That would mean cancelling programmes for new weapons—which is why the generals, unlike the men and women they command, want the privatisation".
  I could understand the reaction of service chiefs faced with that case, even though any analysis would show that it does not stand up for a second. But has the case in fact been made? Is it true? Has the connection been made? We need a categorical statement on the matter.
  The Secretary of State alluded to, but did not deal properly with, the fact that the MOD has lost long-term control of the future of the estate. The MOD may make a decision on an exchange on military grounds, but, as far as we can see, it can be overruled by a civilian arbitrator. Families may be consulted—let me make it clear that that

  993
  is a welcome change—but the decision will not be in their hands, nor in the hands of the MOD, the House or another place.
  The consultation is welcome but it is largely cosmetic. Indeed, it is not the consultation that was proposed in the early-day motion or in the resolution—it is consultation after 25 years, not consultation before the sale. In any event, as has been mentioned by hon. Members of all parties, it does not alter the fundamental weaknesses of the scheme, which is still a matter of concern to the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Bexleyheath.
  Let us consider the £100 million for upgrading, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, especially the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I find it astonishing that, in their amendment, the Government are still setting great store by the £100 million of what they claim is new funding. First, it is £20 million a year over five years, or even less if it is over seven years. That may impress the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken), but I am not sure that it impresses Army families.
  Secondly, last year alone, the MOD spent £126 million on repairs and £40 million on upgrading the estate. The £20 million is a welcome increase, but it is a small percentage of the total. Thirdly, there is no guarantee of additionality. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement must tell us how much will be spent in each of the next five years on repairs and upgrading; if not, the scheme has as much substance as Scotch mist or a promise made on a wet Thursday night i n Dudley town hall.
  Where will that leave the MOD? It leaves it precisely with the concern expressed by the Select Committee—that, in the longer term, the Treasury might press for any gap that may arise between the money paid by the MOD and the money received from the occupants to be closed. That reality is glaringly obvious, not only to the Select Committee but to service families around the country. If the Minister has any doubts about their feelings on the subject, I hope that the MOD official who covered my meeting with Army wives in Colchester will have made them clear.
  What have the service families lost? They have lost the possibility of the discounted sales scheme, which has not been mentioned today. This year they have already had rent increases of between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent and have been warned that more are on the way. They are concerned that financial pressures will reduce the availability of housing and create difficulties as they move from one establishment to another. The sale will only make things worse, and it is therefore no wonder that they are fearful for the future.
  It is also clear that the proposal is financially a bad deal for the country. In this dash for cash, the MOD is taking on an open-ended commitment. One does not have to follow the figures that appeared in The Times to realise that annual payments towards the end of the first 25 years could be substantial and, indeed, could well exceed the original purchase price. While house prices have been falling recently, private sector rents have been rocketing—up 19 per cent. in 1994, 22 per cent. in 1993, 26 per cent. in 1992 and 26 per cent. in 1991. The Government are selling at the bottom end of the market and renting on a rising tide. As many hon. Members have asked, what will that ultimately mean for the MOD's budget?
  994
  What are the key attractions for the purchasers? They are getting a steady guaranteed income stream that can only be adjusted upwards, as I have outlined—and for what? Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls), they will not have to use private sector skills and will not be managing or maintaining the estate. All that they have to do is rake in the cash and sell the spare property, although what bankers in Tokyo, New York and Amsterdam know about the property market in Portsmouth or East Anglia is quite beyond me. Presumably, the purchasers are hiring people who do know about it, but why the MOD cannot do the same is equally beyond me.
  I also find it remarkable that when we recently debated the Armed Forces Bill, we were told—rightly, to my mind—that the armed forces were a special case. Yet now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got his sums wrong, we are told that their housing should be treated like any other commercial transaction. That is significant because in a country such as ours which has an unwritten constitution, it is very important to acknowledge the informal relationships that keep society together. We have a strong tradition of our armed forces being loyal to the Government of the day. In turn, the troops are loyal to the armed forces and wives and families are loyal to the troops. All those relationships are reinforcing, but they must be reciprocal. That is the unwritten contract that we have with our forces. If it appears, or even believed, that the Government are not loyal to service families, shock waves run through the system, affecting not only recruitment but retention, with all the subsequent impact on morale and operational effectiveness.
  As many families fear, the Government may have decided that they want the forces to comprise primarily single young men. If so, they should come clean and say so, allowing service men and their families to make a decision about their future. If the Government have taken that decision, it would be a retrograde step, especially since the Army is involved in peacekeeping operations, which require a balance of personnel including mature and experienced soldiers, and what all the services increasingly need—it is part of the Bat report that has been mentioned—are trained, experienced, technical personnel. [Interruption.] I tell the Minister and Conservative Members that that fear has been expressed to me very strongly by Army wives. The Minister needs to dispel those fears by not only words but deeds.
  We need to strip the scheme down to the essentials and consider it apart from all the fripperies. As has been rightly mentioned, it is not a privatisation. Nor is it a property deal. It is a shuffling of the financial pack to help out the Chancellor. Essentially, it is a sale and lease-back scheme. Whatever the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) says, that is the scheme's essential financial nature. It is a live now, pay later scheme. It is not defence led; it is Treasury driven.
  Future Governments, the armed forces and service men and women and their families will be paying for the scheme—without even being properly consulted before the sale. That is why I have no hesitation in asking not only my hon. Friends but Members of all parties who have the interests of the armed forces at heart to join me in the Lobby.
  6.52 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I can say without fear of contradiction that this has been one of the best debates that I have attended in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made speeches of deep passion and knowledge, and it is an honour to be able to take part in the debate. To those to whom I shall be unable to respond directly—there will be several, I am afraid—I apologise. I will write to them after the debate.
  I must first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) about the application of the Crichel Down rules. A very small number of properties are being considered in relation to Crichel Down. The sale package has not yet been finalised, but we hope to sort out those properties very soon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, went through the Committee's report, which we have welcomed and found extremely constructive and helpful. I thoroughly enjoyed giving evidence to the Select Committee. It was an instructive experience, even when faced with Jesuits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside raised the important point about future rent, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). The question was whether the Treasury compensation would grow in real terms in line with any rental growth. Rental growth has been taken into account in our calculations. I do not want to say precisely what rental growth we expect, but it is nothing like that suggested in a rather absurd article in The Times recently. There will be a reduction in the number of quarters that we rent back, and that will of course offset the growth in rents. The bottom line is that the defence budget will not be the loser, which is very important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside also asked whether £2,000 a dwelling would be enough to upgrade MOD quarters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) rightly pointed out, about 50 per cent. of the houses in the MOD's possession are in top condition. We will want to concentrate the spending on those in the worst condition.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a member of the Select Committee, made an interesting speech in which he said that the purchaser has no risk, as did the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). When the hon. and learned Gentleman was looking at the Select Committee report, perhaps he should have read paragraph 76, which says:
  "It is clear that the MoD marketing of the estate has been approached professionally, and put to prospective bidders in a way that encourages them to expect a potentially profitable but not risk free acquisition."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] That was the end of the paragraph.
  I turn to the important speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I am grateful for what he said about a significant number of concessions of substance. As he said, moves have already taken place. He also referred to some moves in his constituency—I think that they were in his constituency.
  Mr. Brazier: They were not.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: In either event, I am not familiar with the specific case to which he referred, but I draw attention
  996
  to the circumstances in which individuals may be called to move because we need to release surplus properties in discrete blocks. We have a conflict. We have to reduce the number of empty properties that the MOD owns, yet, because of the points that he among others raised, we need to preserve the coherence of the regimental patch. We could address that problem either by pepper-potting civilians into military estates, which would not be satisfactory, or by moving people in order to ensure that we can release discrete blocks. The only alternative would be to leave empty the current 12,000 empty properties, but that is not acceptable.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry. I am afraid that I do not have time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) raised a number of important issues. He suggested that we might be overthrowing a system that has been in existence since the war. We are not really doing that. We are ensuring that we have a significant amount of money to upgrade the property in which our service men and women live, which must be of benefit to the country. Opposition Members cannot dismiss lightly the £100 million as though it were an irrelevance. That is the amount that the Defence Housing Executive believes is needed to upgrade substandard properties to the proper standard.
  Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that he is talking about more than £50 million for one estate alone?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: No, because the amount that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, which relates to the estate that he went round only last Thursday, would be quite sufficient to knock down and rebuild the entire estate. I am afraid that he is wrong on that.
  Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: No. Furthermore, that amount is additional to what we already have and represents an increase of 50 per cent. every year over the period in which we believe that we can spend it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) made an important speech in which he said that the support of the chiefs of staff was important. I agree. The chiefs of staff have said that the position has improved dramatically and their concerns have been allayed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said that the Treasury would need to fund the rent over 25 years. I have made it clear there will be no detriment to the defence budget in respect of that transaction. He said that we would need stocks of quarters in future in order to improve recruitment into the armed services. He was absolutely right and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concentrated on that point.
  As for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I agreed with every single word, as I said in the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) made an extraordinary speech in which he got virtually every statistic wrong. He said that it was not clear how much it

  997
  would cost to improve the estate. I have already said—on the advice of the Defence Housing Executive—that it would cost £100 million. That is the amount we are getting as an addition to the budget. He said that there was no guarantee of additionality. The Treasury has guaranteed that it will be additional to the defence budget. He said that £20 million a year was a small proportion of the money already spent. It is a 50 per cent. increase in upgrading on the amount that we already spend. I cannot go through his entire speech as it would take me until tomorrow morning to correct every aspect that he got wrong.
  The public profile of the married quarters estate has risen considerably over the past few weeks. In their early-day motion, my hon. Friends—not the Opposition—expressed a number of concerns which reflected the genuine worries of the people occupying the married quarters. I hope that this evening we have demonstrated the Government's determination to protect the interests of service families and the maintenance of the service way of life. Any suggestion by the Opposition that we are not mindful of those interests is utterly wrong.
  Morale and confidence are vital and they must and will be sustained. Therefore, we attach the greatest possible importance to the preservation of the patch and all that goes with it and all that it means for the solidarity and security of service families.
  When service men and women are serving abroad, the last thing they need is to worry about is their families back at home. Of course we recognise that, so we shall ensure that nothing in the sale leads to the break-up of the patch.
  In addition, we have secured a good deal for the taxpayer. We have consulted widely in recent months and responded positively and constructively to the points made to us by families' representatives, hon. Members and those in another place. The services can be confident that the housing in which they live in future will be of a better standard than they have been used to in the past and the taxpayer can be assured that the waste of empty public accommodation will come to an end. I commend the Government's amendment to the House and invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 307.

  Division No. 203]

  [7.03 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, Stephen

  998

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Chidgey, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hodge, Margaret

  Church, Judith

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobson, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lewis, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Eddie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Flynn, Paul

  McAllion, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Fraser, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fyfe, Maria

  McFall, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  McKelvey, William

  Galloway, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McLeish, Henry

  Garrett, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  George, Bruce

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  MacShane, Denis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWilliam, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Golding, Mrs Uin

  Maddock, Diana

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mahon, Alice

  Graham, Thomas

  Mandelson, Peter

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Marek, Dr John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Michael, Alun

  999

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Simpson, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sr David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Straw, Jack

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don

  Pendry, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watson, Mike

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wilson, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Joe Benton and Ms Janet Anderson.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Beggs, Roy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, Mr

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  1000

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Fit Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothterry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribbb Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gallie, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Ftt Hon Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  1001

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch))

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Norris, Steve

  Stephen, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stem, 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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walden, George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Willetts, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Sproat, Iain

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government in its determination to improve the quality and management of service housing; notes that the proposed sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales will release £100 million of new funding to upgrade married quarters throughout the United Kingdom, and enable the Ministry of Defence to dispose more efficiently of surplus properties; notes that the sale will have no bearing on the charges service personnel pay for their quarters; recognises that the interests of the services and service families have been properly protected; and accepts the judgment of the Government and the Chiefs of Staff that the sale offers the right basis for real improvements in service housing which are long overdue.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We now move to the next debate, which is on energy policy. I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that British Energy has been privatised for just £1.4 billion, well below the Government's early estimates and proof that the sale was a bad deal for the taxpayer which was carried through in defiance of basic common sense; notes that there is no sign of a strategy from the Government upon the ad hoc restructuring of the electricity industry in which companies and billions of pounds have changed hands but consumers have become an afterthought; further notes that, as more coal pits close, there is no sign of a strategy on the effect of the renegotiation of the coal contracts in 1998 or of the take-or-pay gas contracts problem and no sign of leadership on the introduction of competition into the domestic gas and electricity supply industries in 1998, risking chaos and a crisis of public confidence in competition; and calls on the Government to establish a framework to promote efficient energy industries delivering a fair deal for consumers.
  According to press accounts, the Minister for Industry and Energy will relinquish his post soon, and he has already informed us that he intends to stand down from Parliament. I believe that his intention, on going into the private sector, was to leave us on a high note following the successful privatisation of British Energy—that "final burst of energy".
  I understand that on 12 July the right hon. Gentleman delivered a valedictory address subtitled, "Some thoughts on energy policy, past, present and future", in which he helpfully admitted:
  "there's still a few things to be sorted out."
  Perhaps that was a coded way of telling us that he is leaving behind him an in-tray stacked high.
  One tribute in the Evening Standard report of the Minister's leaving says:
  "One major unresolved issue left by the minister is the introduction of competition in the domestic electricity market, in theory due to start in 1998."
  This week Sir Denis Rooke, who was the head of British Gas from 1976 to 1989, declared that millions of "Sids" had been conned into buying shares:
  "Over the years 'Sid' certainly has been conned … There's not even been any real explanation … What is happening is the kind of mess I thought we were going to get into. It happens to be much greater, and faster, than I'd expected".
  So much for the dream of shareholder democracy that the Conservative party held out to the Sids.
  In The Times today, under the headline, "Damning report for electricity competition plan", we find an article spelling out Coopers and Lybrand's view that the plans to bring competition to 23 million domestic energy customers
  "will fail or be significantly delayed, with the inevitable resultant recriminations and potential harm to the industry and its customers".

  1003
  In today's "City Comment" column in the Evening Standard we read:
  "The British Energy flotation"—
  that is, the nuclear privatization—
  "has combined bad subject matter, bad luck and bad judgment … the advisers look foolish, the Government is poorer than it hoped and Sid is out in the cold … It is an ignominious end to a story that was jaded from the start."
  If that is the note on which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to leave, he is getting out of the way in time before the flak catches up with him.
  In recent months, the Labour party has twice forced the Government to come to the Chamber to debate nuclear privatisation—on 26 March and 18 June. After each debate, our critical questions were left unanswered. Our view—that this fag-end privatisation would prove to be a bad deal for the taxpayer—has proved to be right. Sadly, it is fast proving to be a bad deal for the 606,000 who have bought shares since then. They have seen their shares falling in value, and they do not yet have their share certificates—so they cannot even get themselves out of the privatisation.
  We objected to the selling off of the eight nuclear power stations for less than the cost of building a single one—the new Sizewell B. BZW, the Government's advisers—who put the prospectus together—originally suggested a valuation of £2.4 billion. However, the price in the end was £1.4 billion—well below the original estimate. It was a giveaway sale by the Government, who were fixed on a last desperate dash for cash. We argued that the cash-generating profitable part had been sold off too cheaply, while millions of pounds of liabilities would remain with taxpayers for generations to come.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it has been sold off too cheaply, as anything only has the value that someone is prepared to pay for it? If the market is now pricing it at below the level at which it was sold, did not the taxpayer get a very good deal?
  Mr. Battle: I am delighted by that intervention. We once had monetarism and neo-Reaganomics, but we now have the economics of the car boot sale—it does not matter what we get for it as long as we get something. The point is that the Government have sold off assets at well below their value to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer will carry on paying for those assets for years to come. The sale has proved to be a bad deal for the shareholders as well. The estimates of the productive efficiency of the power stations, which at the time were set at 83 per cent., were well above 75 per cent.—the usual performance of the reactors. In other words, they were grossly optimistic.
  When we challenged the Government on reports of faults at Hunterston B power station, we were accused by the Minister of scaremongering. Yet within five hours of the closure of the sale of shares on 10 July, the company publicly revealed that two out of the seven privatised advanced gas-cooled reactors—Hunterston B and Hinkley Point—had been found to have identical steam leak weld faults, and both were taken out of service.
  Before the Minister leaves, perhaps he will tell us when he and his Department knew of those faults. Why were the potential investors not told? Why was the problem
  1004
  not even spelt out in the prospectus? Can he confirm the chronology of the problems with the re-heat boiler pipe weld cracks on Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B? In late March, Hunterston B reactor 4 load was reduced and the C quadrant boiler was taken out of service with a suspected steam crack. It was shut down on 13 April, but was re-opened at 75 per cent. of capacity on 4 May after the removal of the defective pipe. It was then put into what is called statutory outage for repairs on 1 June.
  When we challenged the Government on 4 June to publish the Clifford Chance report that made direct references to the steam cracking, we were told that these matters would be dealt with in the forthcoming prospectus. We asked for that Clifford Chance report to be put in the public domain, and I again ask the Minister to do that, so that the details of what went on can be known. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, on 7 June, Hinkley Point B also moved into statutory outage. Yet, for some reason, it took 28 days until 4 July to reveal that a similar fault with steam pipe weld cracks had been discovered on reactor 4 of Hinkley Point B as well. Why did it take 28 days for that fault to be revealed?
  The Minister may claim that the problem was announced in advance and that the shareholders ought to have picked it up. But it was published in that well-known and well-read journal, the "British Energy Monthly Output" figures. It appeared on 4 July, but only as a footnote on weld inspections at Hinkley and Hunterston. I do not think that those who have bought shares will think that that is good enough. They will believe that they have been seriously short-changed.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that because certain reactor faults were not made public, shareholders have overpaid for the purchase of nuclear energy shares. How does he reconcile that with his earlier comment that the Government did not get a sufficiently high asset price for the sale?
  Mr. Battle: We know that the reactors were undersold because of the price of building them, and we have seen today that the cost of the shares is falling through the floor—89p is I believe the price today. [Interruption.] I do not think that the shareholders will be amused by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). They believe that the Government have short-changed them again. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton puts his finger to his head, as if he were an idiot. I would suggest that his economics have proved to be idiotic for the past 15 years, and that it would have been common sense to calculate the cost to future generations of taxpayers of selling off the nuclear industry.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Battle: I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make a little progress.
  Why were the shareholders not told that there were faults in the reactors? It is not that the structural faults would jeopardise safety—I accept that, despite what some have irresponsibly claimed. But they certainly would affect generating efficiency and capacity. In other words,

  1005
  those reading the prospectus and buying the shares on the basis of that prospectus were sold short. Either that, or Conservative Members think that they ought to talk up shares and not give people the real facts about what they are buying. I suspect the latter to be the case.
  While the Secretary of State was in the dealing room of BZW watching the shares being sold on screens, were the Ministers sitting on that crucial information that we know and they know would have jeopardised the sale even more? That is why this desperate dash for cash is the final betrayal of the ordinary shareholders whom the Government have claimed for years to support.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Battle: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once already. I want to refer to that other acclaimed success—something to which the hon. Gentleman may wish to refer himself—the opening up of the electricity market to competition. Day by day, we learn that company after company—including GEN and Sainsbury—are refusing to pay the pool for electricity because they believe the pool system to be operated in the interests of its members, rather than its customers.
  Of the 9,000 who were brought into the scheme in the industry on the last occasion the Government opened up the electricity market to commercial customers, only 5,000 had meters on the day. Coopers and Lybrand published a report subsequently describing the whole process as chaos. What do we find today? Coopers and Lybrand has published a review of the preparations for the introduction of the 1998 competitive supply market. On the likelihood of delivering that market in 1998, the review states:
  "A significant majority felt the likelihood to be well below 50 per cent., while a number felt that the deadline is already unachievable."
  The report continued:
  "OFFER's contribution is still not sufficient … Furthermore, PA Consulting … who currently undertake the role of the overall programme manager on behalf of OFFER was seen by many as being 'gagged' by OFFER leading to a lack of trust and credibility in them within `the industry'."
  The report continues:
  "By most standards, an industry-wide programme such as 1998 represents a very sizeable project and not one to be managed by loose overall coordination … it is inappropriate to allow the various parties free rein with the hope that it will all prove 'all right on the night'. In our view, it requires firm and committed programme management."
  That is the view of the Government's own auditors.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the value of energy projects is exactly equal to the amount of money invested in them. Is he aware that he is making the same mistake as that made by the Labour Government that invested millions of pounds in the ground nut scheme, which proved to be worthless?
  Mr. Battle: I am always glad of a historical reminder. I am tempted to divert the debate, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the INMOS project had been properly supported, half of software production would be in Britain rather than elsewhere. This is a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  1006
  Competition, yes—but not simply for its own sake. We believe that it is vital to get it right. If competition in the electricity market in 1998 fails and falls flat, although the Minister for Industry and Energy will be well out of the way, it will generate a massive crisis of consumer confidence in competitive energy markets. There must be leadership from somewhere to ensure that metering, billing and the settlement of the bills and payments is sorted out in advance and not left to a simmering row between the regulator and the pool.
  As the head of Yorkshire Electricity is already warning, the real test of 1998 will be its effect not only on price, as Conservative Members insist, but on our social obligations to the people who find it hardest to pay their bills. Yorkshire Electricity argues that the electricity prices charged to those least able to pay will have to rise in the new market when the new entrants take up their customers. The social obligation to share costs will disappear and companies will remove any cross-subsidies. That will lead, as we have predicted, to cherry picking. Direct debit payers will get the best deal and the cheapest energy at the expense of the poorest. Yorkshire Electricity and other regional electricity companies rightly ask who will address the effects of unbundling the costs before 1998. If price competition is to work, it must be judged by its effect on those least able to pay, whose need for energy is basic.
  It is true that this is the great age of transition in energy markets. Coal, gas, electricity and nuclear energy have been privatised by the Government. There has been a shift from coal, the total fuel demand for which has fallen from 40 per cent. in 1970 to some 25 per cent. today. Gas-generated power contributes some 20 per cent. of energy generation; nuclear energy 25 per cent. There has been a dash for gas.
  Mr. Duncan: There is one point about which the House is puzzled. On the sale of nuclear energy, does the hon. Gentleman think that the share price should have been lower because of what he said about the prospectus, or higher because of what he said about the asset value?
  Mr. Battle: We made it clear that we would not have started to sell nuclear energy. We have emphasised that it is a bad deal for the taxpayer and the shareholder alike. [Interruption.] I am sure that shareholders and future generations will not laugh when the Government have been seen off the park because they will have to pick up the tab for the Government's irresponsibility in dealing with the industry.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my hon. Friend think that it is a sensible use of taxpayer's money to spend £3 billion on building the world's largest pressurised water reactor at Sizewell and within 12 months of it coming on stream, to sell it for £1 billion and throw seven free advanced gas-cooled reactors into the bargain?
  Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience in spelling out the arithmetic so that a schoolchild could understand it. The problem is that the Government do not seem to be affected by the arithmetic. They are still prepared to press ahead.
  There has been what has been described as the dash for gas—the move to gas as a primary generator of fuel. When we discussed the coal review, the Government said

  1007
  that they wanted diverse and secure supplies of energy at competitive prices for years to come. We should take that seriously and make sense of it so that we do not end up dependent halfway through the next century on one source of fuel generation—gas—and then run out of it, and so become dependent on importing gas through the gas interconnector. That would be typical of the short-sighted cash-in mentality of this Administration.
  The recent report by the 2,000 scientists who came together for the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change concluded that the balance of evidence suggested that global warming is a real phenomenon in many parts of the world, even though it may be masked in Britain by pollution from burning fossil fuels. We should take it seriously and plan for it in our energy and environmental strategies. It is not simply about price.
  In a written answer to a question that I asked when I was first appointed to my present position, the Minister for Industry and Energy told me that we did not need to worry because there were 53 years of gas reserves in the North sea. I do not know how he arrived at that figure but some oil companies argue that it would need only two hard winters for the gas bubble, as it is called, to disappear. That would put us under pressure and we would have to import gas. If our source of gas imports was the Caspian region, it would be difficult to guarantee secure supplies because of political difficulties.
  We believe in a sustainable energy future for Britain. When a previous Secretary of State for Energy, Nigel Lawson, was asked about that, he said that Britain did not need an energy policy because the market would provide one. There would be some regulation for a while and then it would wither away. We do not believe that the market alone will provide for the future energy needs of Britain. The mayhem of the past week is proving that already. We believe that we will need fair, accountable, transparent, depersonalised regulation and we will publish our detailed plans for that shortly.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow but can he confirm that industrial gas prices, on average, have fallen by 48 per cent. in real terms since privatisation? To what does he attribute that—the tooth fairy?
  Mr. Battle: I can confirm that gas prices are falling but we should compare them with the beach price. Some people believe that when the gas market is open for full competition in 1998, domestic prices could fall and commercial prices rise. The chimera of the lowest possible gas price is not what Conservative Members claim.
  The target that we must aim at is not driving up the price every day for a short-term win or lose competition but to get sustainable, long-term competition in energy markets. We are committed not only to developing cleaner energy supplies, conserving energy and reducing demand but to ensuring that there is sustainable long-term competition in energy markets.
  We are committed to increasing the proportion of energy generated by renewables. Lamentably, renewables such as combined heat and power schemes and photovoltaics have not been backed by the Government
  1008
  and renewables contribute only 3 per cent. of our energy. We shall push harder for a clean fuel levy. We spell out that we would increase targets for cutting emissions.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment about a clean fuel levy, because, at the weekend, the Financial Times suggested that the Labour party was considering using that levy to subsidise so-called "clean" coal. That clean coal will, however, contribute to global warming. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Labour party's position is on this matter?
  Mr. Battle: We would certainly examine the current levy on renewables and other options. The Government lock out the option of photovoltaics, for example. We would examine options to ensure that we have various sources of fuel, which does not mean writing off the coal industry. The tragedy is that the technology to clean up coal at the front end rather than at a later stage was developed in Britain but it was sold abroad. That technology could help to get rid of some of the noxious emissions, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, and it is still a possibility.
  We will consider the issue of home energy efficiency. We do not think that reducing energy demand is necessarily in conflict with the generation of energy. There should be programmes to promote energy efficiency and to build on home energy efficiency schemes. We could create 50,000 new jobs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) spelt out in February. We are committed to taking action to reduce greenhouse gases, which means dealing with the issue of energy generation—as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned.
  We need a more comprehensive approach if we are to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. It could be argued that the Government have hit their targets only because they have closed down the manufacturing sector that created most of the problem. The Government have cut £31 million in the Budget from the home energy efficiency scheme, which has meant the loss of more than 1,000 jobs and the insulation of 2,000 fewer homes.
  As the poet Valéery said:
  "the future is not what it used to be."
  Energy markets may look very different in the future. Already supermarkets are saying that they could be energy suppliers through the use of smartcards. Already we face turmoil in takeovers and mergers in the electricity generation and supply sectors.
  We say clearly that we do not want to be faced with a nuclear flotation flop. We do not want to face competition chaos, which risks causing a crisis of public confidence in even the idea of competition in energy markets. We do not want takeover or merger confusion in which the Minister disagrees with the Secretary of State over reports from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on PowerGen and National Power. The impression that I get from the Minister for Industry and Energy is that, yes, he has been involved in all the privatisations, but he has lit the blue touch-paper and is simply walking away.
  The Government lack leadership and vision. They are incapable of providing the leadership and vision to face the fact that we live in an age of transition. We face great

  1009
  changes, not least in the energy sector, and the future will look different: but we should face the changes positively, and welcome their challenges.
  We are prepared to work with industry to achieve the potential in the energy utility sector. We want to set our sights so that they break out of the restrictions caused by the Government's short-term thinking and to deal with the problems that our society will face half way through the next century. That is too much to expect from this short-term, short-sighted Government. Whoever replaces the Minister for Industry and Energy at the Dispatch Box will not be able to provide the leadership and the vision that we need in energy policy to take us into the next century.
  7.43 pm
  The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `congratulates the Government on its privatisation of the former state energy sector; notes that its market-based energy policies have led to lower prices and better services for consumers; and looks forward to the further benefits to consumers which will flow from the opening up of the gas and electricity markets in 1998.'.
  Whoever replaces me at the Dispatch Box at some stage in the future, I am sure that he will do much better job of it than would the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose speech was completely incoherent. He did not seem to understand most of what he talked about, and he made no attempt at all to describe the Labour party's energy policy, which does not surprise me. Looking at the motion, in a flash I was transported back to the old days of old Labour—back to the 1970s, and to the days when no speech from a Minister in the then Labour Government was complete without making reference to an energy strategy and no paragraph was complete without paying obeisance to an energy plan. Those features can still be found in the motion. Let us go through it.
  According to the motion, the hon. Member for Leeds, West and his advisers should decide how much British Energy is really worth. For Labour today, it is a case not only of "Whitehall knows best" but of "Short money advisers know best". There is no role for the market. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) asked the obvious question, how a deal can be bad for both the shareholder and the taxpayer, the hon. Member for Leeds, West seemed to be totally incapable of understanding the absurdity of his statement. The Opposition motion seems to state that the Government should restructure the electricity industry. According to Labour, the market should of course have no role.
  Further on in the motion there is a complaint about coal pits closing. But what is the Labour party's policy on coal? Will it or will it not, if it were to get into power, renationalise the coal industry? We know very well what the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said about it. He was quite clear about it and said:
  "I should be astonished if our plans to rescue the coal industry after the next election did not involve public ownership."
  That well-known friend of the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), was even more precise later in the debate. He said:
  "When Labour returns to power … we shall restore it"—
  the coal industry—
  1010
  "to public ownership".—[Official Report, 23 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 313–84]
  That is a quite clear and unequivocal commitment—one that would really warm the heart of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  We have heard not a word about the Labour party's policy on coal. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West now to tell us—I shall willingly give way to him—whether the Labour party will or will not renationalise the coal industry.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I am always willing to allow the hon. Gentleman to speak for the Labour party, because he is its real core. The hon. Member for Leeds, West does not have the guts to stand up for anything.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister has taken my name in vain, because he said that I would agree with the statement that he just made. Let me put him straight about coal. The Government destroyed the coal mining industry. There are now no pits left in my constituency. There are four or five pit villages in which the unemployment rate is more than 50 per cent. That is the tragedy of the pit closures.
  I shall tell the Minister, in case he wants to repeat it, that I believe that the next Labour Government—when he has a job in the City, raking in money from the people whom he has been dealing with—should take the coal industry back into public ownership and not pay any compensation at all.
  Mr. Eggar: There we have it. That intervention is interesting, because, a few years ago, the hon. Member for Bolsover would not have prefaced his remarks by saying, "I believe." He would have said, "The Labour Government, if they come into power, will renationalise the coal industry."
  Mr. Skinner: Who is an idiot now?
  Mr. Eggar: I think that it is the hon. Member for Leeds, West, because he is squirming. He has discovered what all previous Labour energy spokesmen have discovered: they cannot make a single pronouncement, because they are frightened of the hon. Member for Bolsover and what he might do to them. They are concerned about making any commitment at all.
  Let us go on and examine what the motion says. According to the Labour party, it is up to the Government to intervene to fix coal contracts and to impose changes on gas take-or-pay contracts. There is no role for the market there, only central direction by the Government.
  To cap it all, the motion then says that we are not taking the lead in introducing competition in electricity and gas. Yet the Labour party opposed the Electricity Act 1989, which introduced competition in both the industrial and domestic markets, and the Labour party voted against the Gas Act 1995, which introduced competition for domestic gas consumers. So to accuse us of lacking leadership in introducing competition in electricity and gas is inaccurate humbug.
  Ms Joan Walley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No, I shall not give way for the moment.

  1011
  I wish to deal seriously with the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Although he did not have the guts to do so from the Dispatch Box, during the past two or three hours he has been running from television studio to television studio and from radio station to radio station saying that he has a leaked document that shows that British Energy deceived shareholders. That is a serious accusation to make. It is significant that he did not repeat that accusation from the Dispatch Box. I wish to go through the chronology of what actually happened.
  Mr. Battle: The Minister will recall the chronology that I read out: it was from that document. There is no problem about that.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman did indeed read something out from a document. The problem is that the document is from a company that competes with British Energy; so he has been going around claiming that British Energy has been deceiving shareholders, basing his allegation on a document that comes from a competitor of British Energy.
  Mr. Battle: It is not a competitor.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not a competitor of British Energy. I know that he is ignorant about the energy sector, but he seems to be unaware that Magnox is separate from British Energy. We have just floated British Energy, not Magnox, on the stock exchange. The Government continue to own Magnox, and it is therefore a competitor of British Energy.
  Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: Yes, have a go.
  Mr. Battle: If the Minister reads through the document, he will see that it is the minutes of the meeting attended by Magnox—that is the heading on the paper—Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear, British Energy and various British Energy advisers.
  Mr. Eggar: I shall go through the whole chronology, and the hon. Gentleman will find out the true position. I am treating this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, because the hon. Gentleman has been making a serious accusation outside the House rather than from the Dispatch Box.
  The British Energy prospectus sets out clearly and exhaustively the range of issues that prospective investors should consider. It covers British Energy's continuing programme of work to deal with the reheat cracking in welds, which led to last week's closures. Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to look at the prospectus, he would have found the details on page 65, and further warnings about this and other technical issues on pages 67 and 109. Far from misleading people, British Energy went out of its way to deal openly with those difficult technical issues.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will give way to him, but will he first listen to my statement? I am trying to put clearly on the record what actually happened. It will benefit the House if I am free to do that.
  1012
  While carrying out planned testing of reheater pipes during the Hinkley Point B statutory outage—which was scheduled to last for two months from 7 June—the existence of a crack in the pipe was confirmed on 1 July. A further test was carried out on 2 July. On 3 July, Nuclear Electric Ltd., which holds the licence, decided to cut out the affected weld for detailed metallurgy tests. On 4 July, Nuclear Electric issued a press release, which reported on its monthly output figures and, in accordance with normal practice, on the progress of the statutory outages at the reactors at each of Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B. I have that press release in my hand.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Eggar: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall do so in a moment.
  The press release noted that a crack in a weld had been discovered at Hinkley; that the weld would be cut out and replaced; and that steam-pipe weld inspections would be undertaken on the remaining reactors at Hinkley Point and Hunterston in due course. Accordingly, the pipe was cut out on 8 July and, on the morning of 9 July, the pipe was sent to the Berkeley laboratory for analysis. At 5.30 that evening, the initial results of the analysis, which showed the extent of the crack to be greater than expected, was passed to Nuclear Electric's director of engineering and, shortly afterwards, to the chairman, managing director, operations director and director of safety at NEL, and to the chairman of Scottish Nuclear.
  At 7.15 that evening, the NEL managing director and the Scottish Nuclear chairman, in consultation with the appropriate technical, engineering and safety directors, decided to shut down immediately the remaining reactors at Hinkley Point and Hunterston for precautionary inspection of their steam-pipe welds. Controlled shutdowns commenced at 8 pm. British Energy's chairman and chief executive were subsequently informed of the position and my officials at the DTI were notified at 9 pm that evening. Ministers, including me, were told about the closures at 9 am on Wednesday 10 July.
  During the morning and early afternoon of 10 July, a high-level group of executives from the British Energy group, including its chief executive, met their advisers and considered carefully the evidence from the metallurgical examination of the cracked weld and the financial consequences of the decision to close the remaining reactors for a two-week inspection so that they could issue a press release containing all the relevant information. At 3.30 pm on 10 July, they met DTI officials and privatisation advisers to advise us of their conclusions and the terms of the proposed press release, before issuing it at 5.30 pm.
  I have taken some pains to explain the process at length because I want to assure the House that there is no question of anyone being misled or of information being withheld. The company acted entirely properly and it is a tribute to its stringent safety procedures that precautionary measures were taken so promptly to deal with the problem. Clearly, the timing of the closures at the two stations was earlier than originally planned, but the company did not regard the developments as representing a significant change for potential investors, so invalidating the prospectus.
  Mr. Battle: This is an important matter, and I listened carefully to the Minister's outline of the programme.

  1013
  The Minister will concede that Nuclear Electric is part of the group. I have in my hand issue No. 6, page 1, of "Hinkley Point News", dated Monday 1 July. It says:
  "During planned inspections on boiler pipeworks associated with reactor 4, a slight defect was discovered on a reheater pipe weld. This weld will now be cut out and preparations are in hand to replace it. This will either require an extension to the current outage, or a separate outage later in the year."
  That was on I July, which does not quite chime in with the timetable that the Minister has just read out.
  Mr. Skinner: What a scandal.
  Mr. Eggar: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the existence of a crack was confirmed on 1 July. It was then—
  Mr. Battle: All the employees knew about it from their newsletter.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman says the employers knew about it.
  Mr. Battle: The employees.
  Mr. Eggar: The employees knew about it. It is part of the culture of British Energy that it is open in its communications with its employees and that it informs both management and employees as issues arise. I am very surprised that Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), laugh at the idea of open communication with the work force.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Ms Walley rose—
  Mr. Paddy Tipping rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. Williams: The Minister says that it is the culture of the nuclear industry to have a free exchange of information with its work force, and I am pleased that we are making good progress in that direction, but should it not be part of that same culture to have free communication with its potential investors and shareholders rather than to defer this announcement to one hour after the close of that share offer? Should not that announcement have been made, at the very least, earlier that day or, better still, two or three days before the close of the share offer?
  Mr. Eggar: I am sorry; I did go to considerable pains, and I think that, if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will follow through the sequence of events, which makes it very clear that the full extent of the crack was not known until the Tuesday evening, that the stations were then closed down and that, subsequently, the chief executive and chairman of British Energy were informed.
  The chief executive and chairman met on the Wednesday, the day in which the retail offer closed, to discuss with their financial advisers the financial implications of the decision to shut down the two stations.
  1014
  They did that, because clearly there was an issue; they were in the process of floating the company. They decided, in the light of all the advice that they had had, that it was not an issue that needed more than the issuance of a press release. As I said, that press release came forward at 5.30 that afternoon.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no attempt to deceive, that absolutely—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, West laughs.
  Mr. Battle:I am not laughing.
  Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say from the Dispatch Box, despite what I have told him about the sequence of events, that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive?
  Mr. Skinner: Yes.
  Mr. Eggar: Obviously not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Battle: I followed the details through as the Minister related them, but they still conflict with the newsletter and the information that was given to the shareholders. He told us to read the prospectus; I notice that he did not read out the relevant part, because it does not spell it out in the prospectus.
  Mr. Eggar: It is sad that, despite a very detailed, explicit, carefully weighed statement from the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman is still prepared, speaking as a supposedly responsible Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, to wave at me a leaked document from a competitor company.
  Mr. Battle: "Hinkley Point News".
  Mr. Eggar: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is, to say the least, unfortunate that a Front-Bench spokesman in the House behaves in that way.
  Ms Walley rose—
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Michael Clapham rose—
  Dr. Michael Clark rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I want to get on with the debate. I will, however, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).
  Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear power stations—indeed, any power station—will from time to time require shutdowns, sometimes scheduled, sometimes not? Despite all this, the power stations about which we are talking at present have increased their load factor in the past five or six years from 52 to 71 per cent. Does that not show the value that the taxpayers are getting when they buy into British Energy?
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. Anyone who knows the nuclear industry, who knows the improvement

  1015
  in the performance of the stations and the dramatic change that has been achieved during the past four or five years, knows that that is a tribute to the skills of the employees of British Energy and to the management of British Energy.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Clapham rose—
  Ms Walley rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I will not give way. I want now—
  Ms Walley: He is afraid of Labour intervening.
  Mr. Eggar: Many accusations could be made, but I am afraid that that one by the hon. Lady is not one that would have much credibility. I have spent disproportionate time on this issue, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I now want to try to deal with the wider issues raised by the motion.
  The debate is entitled "Energy Policy". The hon. Member for Leeds, West made it clear that for him energy policy means centralised command-style planning—the planning that gave us all the energy mistakes of the 1970s.
  Conservative Members have consistently applied an energy policy for several years. We do not believe that direct control or ownership of the energy industries is necessary or desirable. We believe that what is needed is competition in open markets, working within a stable framework of law and of regulation. That is how we think we can best promote our energy objectives of providing secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies in the form that people and businesses want and at competitive prices.
  For much of the past 50 years, most of the energy sector was in the grip of state-owned monopolies formed in the splurge of Labour nationalisation after the last war. The lessons that we have learnt since then, at some cost to us all and to the national economy, are as follows. Governments are no good at running a business from day to day. Mistakes produced by a central planning system tend to be large and expensive. Innovation and efficiency are stifled in a monopoly system, as customers have no choice or alternative.
  Over the years, nationalised industries' operational efficiency was subordinated to whatever current political imperatives held sway. At one time, prices and incomes policy held electricity prices down; the next year, International Monetary Fund pressures forced them up. That was the reality of state ownership of the nationalised industries and state control of dirigiste energy policy.
  The Conservative Government determined that we do a lot about this. We determined that the energy businesses should be run as businesses, not arms of the state. We privatised the nationalised industries. We set up regulatory regimes to encourage the development of competition and to control prices where competition did not exist.
  1016
  All that has been very successful. Let me take some examples. In the industrial electricity market for supplies over 1 MW, more than half the consumers have switched to a supplier other than the local regional electricity company, and more than one third of the smaller industrial consumers of supplies over 100 kW have switched suppliers. The result has been clear—real industrial electricity prices are the lowest since records began.
  In the industrial gas market, as has been said, very many firms have switched to the new entrants. The result is clear: real industrial prices are about half those at privatisation 10 years ago. Despite the fact that full competition is not yet here, domestic consumers have benefited considerably. Real annual average domestic electricity prices are the lowest since 1974. Coke and coal prices are the lowest in real terms since 1975.
  In 1986, it used to take the average earner about 77 hours' work to pay for his year's gas bill. It now takes that average earner about 55 hours to pay for the average gas bill. The prospects for domestic gas consumers under full competition appear even brighter. The average earner in the south-west trial area only has to work about 44 hours to pay for his year's gas supply.
  Strong regulation and competition are not only about price; they are about higher standards, better service and stronger customer orientation. Social responsibilities have not been forgotten—since privatisation, gas disconnections have fallen by two thirds and electricity disconnections have fallen by a staggering 98 per cent. The system is working. Consumers are already receiving significant benefits from the changes that we have made, and there will be even more benefits in the future. Companies have been encouraged to innovate, to become more efficient and to become more effective. The environment has also benefited because of the reduction in the pollution that is emitted from the more advanced electricity-generating sets. Our market-based policies are working. We have brought about a radical and revolutionary change in the way in which the energy sector works, to the benefit of all.
  Mr. Tipping: The Minister has referred to things that have come down, but will he also refer to things that have gone up, such as complaints against British Gas? Has not the consumer lost out in many ways?
  Mr. Eggar: The consumer has gained from the reduction in real gas prices, which have fallen by almost one quarter over the past 10 years. I have already referred to figures that show that the average earner has to work 22 hours less each year to pay for his gas than was the case at the time of privatisation. That is a significant benefit, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the benefit that competition has introduced into the south-west.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West did not make a statement about energy policy, but there was something else: a dog that did not bark. We know that one area of Labour policy exists: the windfall tax, which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he did not mention the windfall tax because, as is well known, the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen for industry and

  1017
  energy do not support it. as was made clear by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on the "Today" programme.
  Mr. Battle: If the Minister read the newspapers, he would know that we have gathered together in support of the windfall tax and that we have made it plain that we will impose it.
  Mr. Eggar: We have made an advance: we now know that at least one member of the Labour party's industry and energy team supports the windfall tax. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West to answer a few questions. Will he confirm whether the windfall tax will be retrospective? There is no answer from the hon. Gentleman—he has failed test No. 1. Will the hon. Gentleman say which energy companies will be hit by the tax? He has not answered—he has failed test No. 2. Will he say how much the windfall tax would be? Again, he has not answered—he has failed test No. 3. Will he say how long the windfall tax will last? Again, there is no answer—he has failed test No. 4. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can confirm how this windfall tax money will be spent.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Jobs.
  Mr. Eggar: Jobs? That is probably another commitment. The Labour party has committed itself to 11 ways of spending the tax, and I am willing to take additions to the list. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he still intends to finance £75 a week payments to the unemployed from the windfall tax—yes or no? Again, no answer. Is the tax still earmarked for a new environmental task force?
  Mr. Battle: The Minister should try reading the newspapers.
  Mr. Eggar: I should read the newspapers? In other words, is it still intended that the windfall tax will be used to pay a fixed sum to people taking jobs in non-profit organisations`' Is the windfall tax going to pay for removing lead piping from the water systems? Will the windfall tax pay for the changes in the VAT thresholds and the capped allowances? Labour Front Benchers have made 11 commitments on how they will spend the windfall tax, but there is no explanation of how they will raise it, who at will be raised from, what the rate will be and how long it will last.
  In "The Road to the Manifesto", the Labour party stresses how important stability is for industry—it is in lights. However, the hon. Member for Leeds, West cannot even answer my simple questions about the windfall tax.
  Mr. Battle: At least we have made it plain that we will introduce a windfall tax. We did not go to the electorate and promise that we would not put VAT on fuel and then put VAT on fuel once we were elected.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should be better briefed or stay seated. The Government have pursued a constant and consistent energy policy since 1979. The policy has delivered enormous benefits to customers, led to dramatic reductions in the price of industrial gas and domestic gas, and to the reduction in the price of industrial electricity. Domestic electricity consumers have
  1018
  received more than £50-worth of free electricity already this year, with further reductions in the pipeline and 6 per cent. in October. Meanwhile, the standard of service is up, and gas and electricity disconnections are down.
  The Government have introduced an energy policy that has benefited the environment and played a critical role in enabling us to meet our climate change commitments. Over the past 10 years, we have introduced competition and change into the energy sector—change that has meant more choice, more efficiency and better technology for consumers and producers alike. The Government have transformed the energy sector, as they have transformed industrial relations. That transformation has been good for consumers, for competitiveness and for the country. I am proud to have played a major part in that transformation over the past four years. I urge the House to reject the Labour party motion and to accept the Gvernment amendment.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I take the Minister back to 1945, a period to which he referred as a splurge of activity in nationalising the industries. He will be aware that in 1947 the coal industry was in such a state of deterioration that it took state backing to regenerate it. The electricity supply industry was nationalised in 1948 and the gas industry was nationalised in 1949—all the legs of the energy industry were brought together in a co-ordinated and efficient way.
  Over that 35-year period, the United Kingdom's energy policy was based on a framework of publicly owned and publicly accountable industries—throughout the 1960s, British competitiveness was able to meet competitiveness anywhere in the world. It is fair to say—I am sure that the Minister has checked his figures for the 1960s—that labour productivity in the nationalised United Kingdom electricity industry was second only to Japan. In other words, the United Kingdom electricity industry, under a nationalised system, delivered electricity efficiently and supported British industry.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the electricity industry had not been nationalised in the late 1940s and allowed to operate nationally, many rural areas of England would not have received electric power for at least another 20 years?
  Mr. Clapham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The condition of the electricity, gas and coal industries was so bad in the late 1940s—they had deteriorated during the war years—that they needed state backing in order to provide power to the consumer. There is no doubt that, if it were not for nationalisation, rural areas would have had to wait many years before they received power supplies.
  The main changes over that 35-year period occurred in the energy balance. Coal was gradually displaced by oil, nuclear energy and later gas. Some pundits—perhaps the Minister will agree with their depiction—describe energy policy in those years as nationalisation followed by pragmatic regulation. It is not fair or correct to say that there was no regulation during that 35-year period: there was pragmatic regulation. That is how many academics, to whose research the Minister refers, describe the 35 years of nationalisation.

  1019
  There was no semblance of energy policy in the 1980s—it disappeared altogether. It became a nostrum that privatisation and the market would allocate energy resources efficiently. That led to the ultimate privatisation—as Lord Parkinson referred to it—of electricity in 1990 and to the privatisation of the coal industry.
  The privatisation of electricity left three main generators: National Power, PowerGen and Nuclear Electric. Twelve regional electricity companies were responsible for supplying electricity. Nuclear Electric remained within the public sector and contributed about 25 per cent. to 26 per cent. of our electricity needs. Nuclear Electric was not privatised in the 1990 package as the market would not take it because of the risks involved—we are talking about £31 billion of undiscounted liabilities.
  Consequently, in 1990 it was decided that it would be better to leave nuclear electricity in the public sector. It was recognised that the income stream that would result from the company's remaining in the public sector could be used to deal with the massive liabilities that had been left behind. Those liabilities, in part, remain in the public sector as the newer power stations have been privatised.
  The privatisation of the electricity industry led to the colliery closure programme of 1992–when the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, threw out all the recommendations in the Trade and Industry Committee report "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal". Following his rejection of those recommendations, privatisation of the coal industry was inevitable. After write-downs and write-offs, the rump of the coal industry was sold to RJB Mining for a knock-down price. About 30 deep mines from the original package are still operating and they produce between 34 million and 36 million tonnes of coal.
  Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman said that the "rump of the coal industry" was sold to RJB at a knock-down price. Does he recall that at the time of the sale, everyone—particularly the financial papers—said that RJB had paid about twice as much as it should, that it would never be able to repay the money and that it would be driven into liquidation? Of course, RJB went on to make a profit. However, it did not seem a knock-down price at the time—certainly not in the view of the analysts.
  Mr. Clapham: It was a knock-down price if one considers the way in which British Coal had previously written off the debt and dealt with the liabilities, so that anyone who took over the mining industry was bound to make a profit in the first few years. I believe that RJB bought the mining industry at a knock-down price and, in hindsight, most analysts would agree with me.
  The coal industry currently produces 34 million to 36 million tonnes of coal. Other companies—such as Coal Investments Ltd., which recently went into liquidation—operate deep mines. It is unlikely that any of the pits that have closed will open again. I ask the Minister to tell us whether assistance will be available to companies that
  1020
  take on the contract to recover plant and machinery from underground. Perhaps he can answer that question when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps the Minister will tell us also what discussions he has had with the Coal Authority. The liability arising from the liquidation of Coal Investments was transferred from the private sector to the public sector and the Coal Authority. Will the Minister confirm whether that liability will amount to about £5 million?
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting me. The Minister may refer to that matter when he winds up. I have put several questions to him but, as yet, he has not confirmed whether the Government will provide assistance to enable companies to retrieve plant and machinery from underground.
  In addition to taking over the deep mines, RJB took control of most opencast sites and potential opencast sites. Those sites stretch throughout England. Opencast production currently runs at about 17 million tonnes, which is about half of all deep mine production. It is the most opencast mining that has ever occurred in this country. Some agencies, such as the Coalfield Communities Campaign, argue that we do not need that much opencast mining—particularly if it is required only for technical reasons.
  I ask the Minister to consider that point when he receives new opencast mining applications. He will be aware that British Coal is now selling land not only to those who have farmed it for years but to the highest bidder. It is attracting opencast miners—and that is its intention. British Coal is putting out its land to tender in the hope that companies will buy the land for opencast mining. Some of the most beautiful countryside in Yorkshire is now under threat.
  For example, "For Sale" signs have gone up on a piece of land in a beautiful valley between Hood Green and Silkstone common in my constituency. It is quite clear that the owner wishes to attract opencast companies. That site is situated in one of the most beautiful parts of Yorkshire. It has high scenic value and it would be a tragedy for the community if the land were used for opencast mining. I invite the Minister to visit that site so that he can see what is at stake as a result of British Coal's policy of offering its land to the highest bidder. The Minister may wish to take up that invitation, and come to see the land. If he does, we may well have his support when it comes to defending the site against the opencast mining companies.
  It is clear that safety in the deep mines has deteriorated radically. Figures for the first year of private ownership, produced by the Health and Safety Executive, show that the number of fatalities and major accidents has increased dramatically. I recall that, during our previous debate on this subject, the Minister said that there was no evidence of an increase in the number of major accidents, but the HSE's figures make it clear that that is not the case.
  Let us take the HSE's comparison of the figures for 1994–5 with those for 1995–96. According to the HSE, there has been an alarming increase in the number of major injuries, from 135 to 159, while the number of fatalities has risen from two to five. I suggest to the Minister that that evidence clearly shows that British deep coal mines are not as safe as they were following

  1021
  privatisation. The alarming increase in the number of injuries and fatalities can be explained by deregulation, by the fact that miners must now work for much longer hours, by increased use of contract labour and by the downgrading of the deputies' role.
  The Minister will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry, insisted that miners would never be put at risk. Perhaps, bearing that in mind, the Minister will tell us what he will do to ensure that the high safety standards that obtained in British mines under nationalisation are reinstated in the next year.
  The current coal contracts are due to be renegotiated in 1998. At present, the collieries provide some 30 million tonnes; last year RJB Mining supplemented that from stock. I understand that the generators took some 56 million tonnes of coal. As the contracts come up for renegotiation, the potential of the entire coal industry will clearly depend on their being long term. As we know, there has been little investment. The Minister did not mention that, since electricity privatisation, there has been no investment in research and development relating to clean coal technology. We now need a balance in our energy policy, but we do not have the means to burn coal efficiently and in an environmentally friendly way.
  Perhaps, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will tell us whether any assistance will be given to such research and development, whether he is prepared to reinstate the investment programmes and whether he is prepared to be helpful to the coal companies in the renegotiation of contracts. Does he, for example, foresee the maintaining of the contracts at 30 million tonnes? Does he expect them to be of a shorter duration? If they are of shorter duration, that will have a considerable impact on mining communities, and it would help those communities to know what is in the Minister's mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke at length about nuclear privatisation. The report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the intended flotation of British Energy, produced in February—which urged caution on the Government—has clearly not been taken into consideration. As the Minister will know, the report emphasised that the scope of the segregated fund did not seem sufficient to cover the liabilities.
  Since the publication of that report, two energy economists have produced a further report. I know that the Minister has read about that material; he will also know of the open letter to him from the two energy economists, published in The Guardian, which made it clear that they stood by their figures. Those figures suggest that privatisation of the seven advanced gas-cooled reactors and the one pressurised water reactor has left up to £6 billion-worth of liabilities in the public sector. If 'we add that to the £17 billion-worth of liabilities that are tied up with the Magnox stations, it seems that the public sector has been lumbered with up to £24 billion-worth of liabilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West pointed out, that is certainly not a good deal for the taxpayer.
  It is clear that the company could never achieve the performances that Barclays de Zoete Wedd advised the Government that it could. As the Minister will know, BZW clearly said that the advanced gas-cooled reactors would be able to reach 82.5 per cent. of their performance
  1022
  over the year. In fact, they have never been able to achieve more than 74 per cent., and I suggest to the Minister that even that has caused problems with welds that have resulted in the closure of the reactors at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston. The AGRs have been pushed to their limits. If that is true, they will never reach the levels that the Government told us that they would, and, consequently, the industry will not be able to generate the profits that were anticipated. This is not a good sale for the shareholder either.
  The closure of the Department of Energy following the 1992 election clearly signified the end of any United Kingdom energy policy as far as the present Government were concerned, and heralded its replacement by an industry-based regulatory authority. The Minister should pay attention to what I am about to say. He chided some of my hon. Friends for the way in which they referred to what the Labour party would do, but it will be left to Labour to harness the utilities for a collective purpose. I suggest to the Minister that, in doing that, we shall ensure that public ownership is back on the agenda within 10 years.
  8.38 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). We served together on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry following the demise of the Energy Select Committee, to which he referred.
  I support the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Energy has been a key feature of this Conservative Government's policies since 1979. No Government had a realistic energy policy before that, although attempts were made to establish energy policies of sorts. Under the 1974–79 Labour Government, there were attempts to introduce such a policy, but in the context of a command economy; never before have we had an energy policy in the context of a supply economy.
  Energy is a commodity, but it is not like other commodities in that it is not tangible. In other words, it cannot be felt or seen. At the same time, it can be measured. The tangible commodity is the fuel that generates energy, so to a large extent energy policy has to be determined by fuels. It is therefore important that we have fuels available at realistic prices. It is also necessary, if we are to build power stations, that we take into account the cost of capital for such investment. That, too, will have a bearing on energy policy.
  We must ensure reliability of power supply, which there has not always been. Above all, we must ensure—the Government have succeeded on this score—that we take into account consumer satisfaction and industrial competitiveness for the well-being of our country. On all these scores, the Government have succeeded, and in all instances the points obtained have been high.
  From the outset, the Government declared that their policy would be one of diversification and market forces. The then Minister who espoused that policy more than any other was Lord Wakeham, as he now is. He constantly stressed the need for diversification and market forces. I remember arguing with him on some occasions and asserting that the latter, market forces, would destroy the former. I argued that diversification would go as market forces took over.
  I accept, however, that that has not been the outcome. Market forces have obliged other energy sources and other fuels to become more competitive. That has

  1023
  happened in the short term, and as a result, there have been price reductions. There has been a downward spiral of prices as competition has come into play. Fuels have decreased in price, as has energy, and consumers, whether domestic or industrial, have benefited.
  We want to see the liberalisation of markets, and those markets should be looked after by regulators who are promoting competition and acting as a proxy for competition when fuel competition is not available for the time being. The Government have ensured that that has happened.
  The greatest step forward on the road towards a liberalised, competitive, consumer-oriented energy policy has been the Government's privatisation programme. It was thought by some—I dare say that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone took the view—that, in the state sector, there was greater security of energy supply. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for taking that approach. Sometimes, however, it was a false sense of security. Frequently, the monoliths in the state sector were inefficient, bureaucratic and susceptible to the whims of union power. It seemed at times that they were run more for the benefit of employees than for consumers.
  The Government privatisation programme took place in five stages. We saw the first stage in the early 1980s with the privatisation of British Petroleum, Britoil and Enterprise Oil between 1981 and 1984. That set the tone, and paved the way for future privatisations. The early privatisations ensured that the oil industry, both upstream and downstream, exploration and retail, was in the private sector.
  Oil was important, of course, for transportation, for heating and for chemical feedstock. Let us never forget that oil should be reserved for chemical feedstock. It is not a fuel for burning. It is a feedstock, as it were, for a complex and highly sophisticated chemical industry.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of gas for power generation is also a waste of a valuable fuel? Gas should be retained for the domestic and commercial markets, not used for the generation of electricity.
  Dr. Clark: I concede that gas is a premium fuel. Indeed, it could be said to be more of a premium fuel than oil. We can use gas for chemical feedstock and for sophisticated forms of transportation where oil could not be used. If we went down that path for any distance, we could say that coal, too, is a chemical and should be used as a chemical rather than as fuel.
  The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down the path that leads to the conclusion that the only fuel that we should be using is nuclear energy. I shall leave that argument for the time being. That, however, is the path down which the hon. Gentleman takes me if we are to consider all hydrocarbons as chemicals rather than as fuels for burning.
  When privatisations took place—this is apart from feedstock and transportation being primary forms of usage—oil was being burned in our power stations, as was coal. Those were the two main sources of fuel for power generation for industry, as well as for home and industrial heating.
  1024
  The next form of privatisation took place in 1986 with British Gas. We privatised it as one entity. Some criticised the process for introducing a privatised monopoly, and I suppose that in some ways that is what it was. It was, however, a big and bold privatisation, the like of which had not been attempted by any other Government, in any country, let alone in the United Kingdom. If there were some aspects of that privatisation to which we wished to return, perhaps that was not too surprising bearing in mind when privatisation took place and how large the endeavour was.
  Prices decreased dramatically as a result of privatisation. As we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister and others, since privatisation, industrial gas prices have decreased by 48 per cent. Domestic gas prices, notwithstanding the imposition of value added tax, have decreased by 18 to 19 per cent. In real terms, gas prices have returned to the prices of 1970, 26 years ago. We have seen efficiency improvements in British Gas. Indeed, British Gas became a world-class international gas company. It was able to export its expertise and to gain contracts for international consultancy.
  As it was an early privatisation, there was clearly a need for regulatory readjustment. Accordingly, the Gas Act 1995 was enacted. That measure will ensure that there will be domestic choice for gas by 1998. Test trials are already being conducted in the south-west. Consumer choice for gas supply has brought about radical change to British Gas. I accept that it has been painful for British Gas employees, and difficult for British Gas shareholders, but it has been beneficial to consumers, many of whom are also employees and shareholders.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about choice for gas consumers. In the coldest days of the year, during the beginning of January, about 10,000 of my constituents found that their gas supply had failed because of the inadequacy of the distribution system in the area. Is the hon. Gentleman sure and satisfied that there will be security of supply in the brave new privatised world he is describing?
  Dr. Clark: It is always difficult to give a cast-iron 100 per cent. guarantee. I doubt very much, however, whether the failure in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which we all regret, was anything to do with the privatisation of British Gas. If there is competition and two or three companies are supplying gas, there is a greater chance of gas being available.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The distribution system failed.
  Dr. Clark: We know that there is only one distribution network. If it was that which had failed, it would have failed whether it was a private sector company, public sector company, privatised or nationalised competition. I think that the failure to which the hon. Gentleman refers was probably incidental and nothing to do with privatisation.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I will continue if I may. I may give way in a moment.

  1025
  The third aspect of privatisation, and perhaps the most complex of all, was in 1990–91, when we privatised the regional electricity companies and generators. It was very complex, but a great success. Again, consumers benefited: industrial electricity prices are down by 10.5 per cent., and domestic prices are down by 8 per cent., in addition to the £50 rebate that householders received from the sale of National Grid. It is anticipated that there will be another fall of 20 per cent. per bill when the fossil fuel levy is reduced later this year or the next.
  At the same time as that privatisation, the Government introduced the non-fossil fuel obligation, which began to encourage benign energy sources—alternative energy sources—and we saw the greatest leap forward ever in alternative energy supply. We were able to make a contribution to the environment by reducing carbon dioxide, and as a result of the prices that were available for people generating electricity from alternative sources, research and development was encouraged for benign and renewable energy sources.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the liberalisation of the energy market and the privatisations have gone hand in hand with a greater social responsibility and performance in terms of environmental care and control across all the energy companies?
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is quite right, because, in the prospectuses for all the privatisations, care was given to environmental matters far exceeding any care that had been given to them before privatisation and before a portfolio and specification were necessary.
  Before I leave electricity, I must say one thing to the Minister, to which I hope he will reply. It is not right that we should have a pool system when bidding for electricity, whereby everyone is paid the price that is paid to the highest bid accepted. I give him an over-the-top example.
  Let us suppose that, on a cold winter's day, we are desperately short of electricity, and some chap in Castle Point is pedalling his bicycle to generate electricity for the grid. We are so short of electricity that we take the electricity from him and pay him 35p a unit for it, even though the going rate at that time may be only 2.8p a unit, but we have to take it because he is not prepared to generate electricity for anything less than 35p.
  Just because we pay 35p for that half-hour period, why should we pay 35p to every single generator in the country, whether the electricity comes from oil. gas or nuclear? I have made an exaggeration to prove my point, but my point is still valid. Every generator should not be paid the equivalent of the highest bid accepted. Payment should be according to the bids made.
  The fourth privatisation was coal. Major change had been brought about by the liberalisation of energy. We all know that, at the end of the privatisation process, the coal industry suffered. I do not deny that. Hon. Members will know that I was as assiduous as most in trying to prevent the decline of the coal industry, but it happened. To some extent, it happened because more gas is being used in electricity generation, but there has been a long-term effect on our coalfields and many coal pits have closed and may never reopen.
  The good news, however, is that, where the industry has been privatised, whether it be RJB Mining or Celtic Energy, the downsizing and the privatisation have brought about an
  1026
  upsurge in efficiency in the coal industry, in morale and productivity. There has been a great improvement in employee participation, and the increase in competitiveness is quite spectacular. Those examples can be seen in both RJB Mining and Celtic Energy. I was pleased to be able to meet representatives of both those companies last week and learn how well they are getting on.
  Mr. Clapham: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not discuss the situation with the men who work at the coal face for RJB Mining or Celtic Energy. Does he agree that, of all the pits that have been privatised, the colliery with the best industrial relations and, indeed, the best and most efficient way of using its human resource, is Tower colliery, which was an employee buy-out?
  Dr. Clark: I am delighted with the results from Tower colliery. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is the only example of an employee buy-out of a colliery in this country. It has been extremely profitable, as indeed have other pits owned by bigger companies. It is just as much a delight to me, my hon. Friends and the Government as it is to the hon. Gentleman that it has been a success. I hope that it will be successful for a long time. Many of its employees staked—I shall not say "gambled", as it was not a gamble—a large amount of personal money on it, and it is a delight that it has succeeded and that they have seen a return on their investment.
  In December 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Sir T. Skeet), who is not present this evening, and I spoke to urge a delay in the privatisation of the nuclear industry, as we thought then that it was not ready for it. The Government thought otherwise, although, a year or so later, my noble Friend Lord Wakeham pulled the nuclear industry out of the privatisation programme. I think that, with the load factor improvements to which we have referred, with public confidence in nuclear energy and with the reprocessing that is available for nuclear fuel, it is the right time to privatise British Energy.
  I hope that British Energy in the private sector will remember its core commitment to nuclear energy. Although it will be tempted to go down other paths, it should remember its expertise and its roots. It should be the source of nuclear power for the future, not just nuclear power for the past. I hope that it will remember that. I am sure that it will be profitable and that it will give a good return to shareholders.
  I conclude by congratulating the Government on their creative energy policy, on their brave decisions on privatisation of the past 17 years, on the care that they have taken to look after consumers, and on their sheer determination to benefit not only the energy industry but the whole of British industry by ensuring cheap and competitive energy.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I hope that the House is in no doubt about at least one point—that energy policy is important. Indeed, the present lack of a coherent energy policy aptly symbolises a Government who have long since lost their way.
  A strategic and comprehensive energy policy is essential if we are successfully to contain global warming by reducing the environmental impact of energy use. It is essential if we are to end the scandal of fuel poverty that

  1027
  affects 8 million families in this country and ensure adequate supplies of energy for future generations. Let me briefly review what we have instead of such a policy.
  We have a Government who choose to sell the profitable parts of nuclear energy for less than the cost of building Sizewell B, while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill—a bill that will be paid by future generations many decades hence. The recent news that, just before its flotation, British Energy shut down Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B but did not release that information until after the flotation, has sparked a stock exchange inquiry.
  We have always said—I have spelt out our position in detail in two debates, and do not plan to do so again now—that the sell-off was bad for the taxpayer. It now appears that small shareholders have also paid the price. Only the Government are laughing all the way to the bank, with another £1.4 billion in their coffers for pre-election tax cut bribes at the expense of saddling the taxpayer with huge long-term liabilities and shareholders with at least short-term liabilities.
  This is a Government who have pushed privatisation on the gas and electricity industries but ignored the problems of fuel poverty and energy inefficiency; a Government with no interest in or understanding of the problems that their approach to every sector of the energy industry has wrought.
  I might add that the Government have not even recognised the countervailing impact on their usual regional development policies of the increasing encroachment of regional pricing differentials. That means—you know this as well as I do, Madam Deputy Speaker—that, in the south-west, in addition to the highest water bills in the country, we shall soon face the highest electricity and gas bills, too. That impacts not only on individuals but on business and on the Government's so-called regional policy, but the Government seem wholly unable to co-ordinate their policy position.
  The lack of any strategy is evident in the Government's amendment to the Labour party's motion. For example, the environmental problems associated with energy use are not even touched on. The Secretary of State for the Environment is fond of saying that his party cares about the environment; unfortunately, the rest of his party does not appear to be listening—certainly not his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the Government are not alone.
  In the very week that national Governments are meeting to discuss climate change, the Labour party manages to table a motion entitled "Energy Policy" which makes no mention of the environment or sustainability, let alone global warming and its relationship to the use of energy. Indeed, the motion contains no indication of what the party's energy policy might be. Was the party not aware of the problems of global warming? Did it simply decide that it was not sufficiently important to warrant a mention? Or, to judge by the brief comments that we have heard tonight, perhaps it simply does not understand the issue.
  Each and every one of us needs energy, but no one consumes energy for the sake of it. Businesses and consumers need energy services such as heat, light and power, but the key question is whether those energy services can be delivered satisfactorily simply through the
  1028
  free operation of the market in energy supply. Unlike the Government, the Liberal Democrats think not. I should like to take a few minutes to explain why, and say what needs to be done.
  First, let us consider the facts. Pollution associated with energy use accounts for the majority of the most serious current environmental problems we face. It is true that the substitution of gas for coal in recent years has contributed to a significant fall in CO2 emissions in this country, as has the recession, but the failure to incorporate environmental costs and benefits into economic decisions has meant that energy efficiency levels over the whole economy have hardly improved since the late 1980s.
  The gains from the dash for gas were a one-off—they cannot be repeated. As, we hope, the economy comes out of recession, they will not even be sustained unless we get back to the important long-term business of improving the efficiency of our energy use.
  As fuel prices have declined in real terms over the past 15 years, the motivation to invest in energy conservation projects has been largely non-existent, while the regulatory regime has promoted and encouraged suppliers to increase sales rather than improve efficiency.
  Gas competition will bring further cuts in prices. Businesses that once employed business efficiency managers are now employing contract managers, realising faster savings by changing suppliers, but gaining no environmental benefits. That situation has been exacerbated by the inadequate funding of the Energy Saving Trust, due to the decision of the gas regulator to rule out the levy, by the lack of action by the Government to restore their original pledges on it, and by Government cuts in the home energy efficiency scheme.
  Eight million families remain afflicted by fuel poverty, the inability to afford adequate warmth in the home and an absence of capital to make efficiency improvements that would cut their bills while creating a warmer home. The impoverished in society live in the worst insulated houses, suffer most when fuel prices rise, cannot afford new and energy-efficient appliances, and therefore waste more of their money and contribute disproportionately to environmental damage by wasting more of the energy they buy. Policies for sustainability must therefore ensure that those who are already worse off are not made more so, and that the prosperity and employment that can be generated by the right economic programme is spread evenly throughout society.
  A reduction in overall energy use is an essential component of any serious attempt to combat pollution, and should also be part of any serious policy to combat fuel poverty. Such a reduction is not a hair-shirt option: about going without warmth or light or about businesses closing. It is about saving waste, not cutting essentials. Government figures show that 50 per cent. of energy used in the United Kingdom could be saved with existing technology alone. Even at current prices, energy use is at least 20 per cent. higher than would be economically optimal, and represents an economic loss of about 3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  Liberal Democrats believe that there is enormous scope in this approach. First, we would introduce mandatory standards and information to ensure that new buildings, machinery, vehicles and appliances were more energy efficient, and we would encourage consumers to take

  1029
  efficiency into account when making purchasing decisions, by providing advice, information and education.
  Secondly, we would give more support to renewable sources of energy through requirements on energy generators, and redirected research and development support. We would stop the ludicrous cost of subsidising a nuclear industry that has proved uncompetitive and—internationally—a threat to the environment. By cutting energy use and investing in development of alternative energy, we will show, as I have always believed, that the nuclear industry is unnecessary as well as uneconomic.
  We read in last weekend's Financial Times that the Labour party is considering boosting the United Kingdom coal industry by subsidising electricity generated by clean-coal technology, as it is called, with money earmarked for renewable energy. So-called clean-coal technology may be cleaner than conventional coal power stations in terms of some pollutants, but it still has a direct impact on increasing global warming.
  That Labour party proposal makes a nonsense of its claim to understand the threats to the environment—let alone tackle them—especially given that comments tonight have made it clear that the renewable energy levy, of all things, should pay for the coal industry subsidy. Such a subsidy would make it impossible for this country to meet the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that are needed to combat global warming, which other Labour spokespeople have suggested they want to achieve.
  Thirdly, we would introduce a major programme of investment in energy conservation, organised and funded through the Energy Saving Trust. About £1 billion a year will be released for that by removing—by legislation if necessary—the regulators' block on the Energy Saving Trust levy. We will implement a policy that the Government pledged, but on which they have failed to take action.
  Since the policy will come in as the nuclear levy goes out, it need not add to the cost of electricity. Householders will have access to a range of loans and incentives to invest in energy efficiency improvements, especially the poorest, who face the misery of cold, draughty homes and huge fuel bills. Moreover, it will provide a huge boost to employment in this labour-intensive industry.
  Finally, and most important, we will reform the tax system—switching the burden of taxation away from employment and income towards pollution and resource use. In all the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development over the past 20 years, the tax burden on labour has greatly increased; yet, on the use of environmental resources, it has fallen. That distribution of the tax burden has led to increased unemployment and environmental degradation. It has made sense for business to invest in low-tax, energy-consuming capital equipment instead of in labour. Businesses that need to invest heavily in people are disadvantaged by the tax system, whereas for decades Governments have helped energy-intensive capital investment, which often replaces jobs with machines.
  By shifting the tax burden from good things such as jobs to bad things such as pollution and the excessive use of limited natural resources, we shall protect the environment, create new jobs and encourage new, green industries that tend to be more labour intensive. Recycling, for example, is 10 times more labour-intensive
  1030
  than landfill, and our proposed programme of insulating low-income homes in the United Kingdom could create 50,000 jobs.
  However, our key policy will be the phased introduction of a carbon tax. We can create a long-term incentive to save energy and switch to less polluting fuels only if there is a long-term incentive to do so and the polluter genuinely pays. The revenue generated will be recycled into the economy through cuts in other taxes with an overall positive economic impact.
  Those on low incomes will be protected from higher costs by limiting carbon tax increases and, where necessary, providing transitional help. Therefore, we shall combine that policy with an overall cut in fuel bills for the poorest households by helping pensioners and low-income families use less energy and have warmer homes through insulation. That is the purpose of our investment in the work of the Energy Saving Trust.
  We have said in the past that we would adopt a carbon tax in the context of an European Union proposal, but that is increasingly unlikely in the short term. Provided that there is a gradual approach, we believe that Britain can gain both environmentally and economically by imposing a carbon tax—alone, if necessary.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: If the hon. Gentleman is so in favour of a carbon tax, why did he not support the imposition of VAT on fuel?
  Mr. Taylor: First, because VAT was imposed on all energy uses, not only those that created pollution. That does not make sense in environmental terms, although it may have made sense to the Government in terms of trying to balance their books.
  Secondly—and crucially—the difference between what the Government did and what we are proposing is that our proposals are tax-neutral. We are talking about imposing environmental taxes, but cutting taxes on jobs and other goods. The hon. Gentleman would probably have preferred that had the Government proposed it; however, they made no such proposal.
  Let me add one final difference. We make such a proposal before the election and spell out what we would do, whereas the Government pledged not to increase taxes, and specifically, not to increase VAT. There is a choice between explaining one's policies to the electorate and deceiving them, and we come down firmly on the side of explanation.
  Carbon taxes have been introduced in four European countries—the Netherlands, Finland, Norway and Sweden—without hurting either their citizens or their industry.
  There is no evidence that higher energy prices need to be detrimental, even to the competitiveness of relatively high energy-using industries, providing that they know what is happening and have time to invest in energy-saving measures. Energy prices in Japan are 49 per cent. higher than those in the United Kingdom, and energy prices in Germany are 41 per cent. higher, but that has not made them uncompetitive, as they use energy more efficiently. The aim of a carbon tax is to create the expectation that energy prices will rise, so that energy conservation becomes a powerful incentive for designers, manufacturers and consumers.

  1031
  The tax raised would help to cut other taxes such as VAT and employers' national insurance, leaving most people better off and creating extra growth in the economy and more jobs.
  However, tax reform in itself is not enough. We also need to reform the energy market. The achievement of those environmental and social aims implies an energy market structure that requires energy suppliers to treat energy conservation on a par with energy supply. We have built in incentives to encourage suppliers to improve energy efficiency for their customers rather than to sell ever-increasing quantities of fuel. That approach also ensures that poor or geographically remote consumers are guaranteed access to supply on equal terms with those who are richer or live in less remote areas. That would be almost impossible to achieve under the current Government's plans to liberalise the domestic energy market.
  We strongly supported the Government in introducing more competitiveness into the energy markets, as it encourages greater efficiency, but we would reform the system of awarding licences to promote investment in energy conservation. A commitment to energy efficiency measures should be a prerequisite for the award of a licence, and suppliers should be monitored by the regulator to ensure that they meet agreed targets. Without such an arrangement, they will not meet the targets, as we have seen with British Gas, which is already dropping several of its programmes.
  I do not believe that any supplier should secure a long-term contract, with all the advantages that that brings, unless it can show that it will be linked with investment in energy conservation. In that way, we aim to ensure that suppliers compete in the provision not only of energy but of energy conservation.
  Many still argue that we cannot afford to protect the environment. They say that environmental measures would increase unemployment and harm most people. That is a myth. The fact is that action to protect the environment, whether it means moving towards environmental taxes or encouraging people to drive more energy-efficient cars less often, can increase jobs and competitiveness, and will certainly improve our quality of life. Moreover, our carbon tax proposals would leave people better off financially.
  In addition, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that environmental protection—
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making a brave speech, and, and unlike Members from the other Opposition party, he is actually spelling out what his policies are. That is good, although I think that some of my constituents might be afeared of the 40 per cent. hikes in energy prices that the hon. Gentleman seems to espouse. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that the energy sector companies should be renationalised during the coming decade? Or would he step back from that idea?
  Mr. Taylor: No, I do not believe that the companies should be renationalised, and—unlike the Labour party, perhaps—we never proposed that they should be. I am
  1032
  about to finish my speech, so I do not want to follow up the hon. Gentleman's intervention too far, but I must tell him that, although I have never put any figure on the changeover, I have said that the changes would be phased in gradually, that we would help people on low incomes to cut their bills through energy conservation, and that the money would be used to cut other taxes.
  So the measures would be fiscally neutral. If anything, the nature of energy use in this country means that the benefits of our policy would result in a slight transfer away from business and towards the consumer.
  The switch to cleaner generating technologies and more energy-efficient products, together with the huge backlog of home energy conservation work, will create major export and employment opportunities. Ours is a win, win, win strategy. Householders will win because investment in energy conservation will provide warmer homes and lower net energy bills as people need to use less energy. Taxpayers will win, because our proposals mean not paying more tax but paying different tax, and most households will pay less—although businesses and individuals that simply waste energy will pay more.
  Indeed, everyone will win, because such an environmental strategy will produce more jobs in a cleaner and healthier environment within the United Kingdom, while giving the world a lead in averting the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, who opened the debate, because he has been at the centre of so many of the exciting and productive developments in energy in recent years.
  When we have stripped the Opposition motion of its party political rhetoric, although it makes a passing reference to consumers, it has nothing to offer them. There is no mention whatever of energy saving or of the environment. The wording of that motion confirms the Opposition's total lack of interest in the environment.
  In the week when the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change are meeting in Geneva to discuss the report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which unanimously concluded that there is now a discernible human influence on global climate, the Labour party has tabled a motion on energy policy that does not even mention energy conservation. That beggars belief.
  We know that energy conservation is important for three main reasons. The first reason is the need to conserve finite resources, which has a broad measure of support among the British people. Secondly, there is the protection of our environment, and all the follow-through from the Rio summit. The third reason is our desire to help the consumer, especially in places such as Eastbourne, where there is a combination of older people, often on limited incomes, and aging housing stock. Everyone has a contribution to make—individual property owners, local authorities and business.
  On that note, I would like to refer briefly to "Making a Corporate Commitment", a Government campaign seeking board-level commitment to good energy management. More than 1,900 organisations from the private and public sectors have agreed to make the

  1033
  commitment, and 53 trade associations and professional bodies—including the CBI and the Institute of Directors—have agreed to endorse it to their members. Signatories agree to appoint a board member to take responsibility for these matters and to join the campaign to raise the profile of energy management at the highest levels of their organisation. "Making a Corporate Commitment" seems to bring real results, as market research indicates that the energy management performance of signatories is significantly better than that of business generally.
  Local authorities have their own role, and I wish that I had more time to discuss the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was widely supported in the House and effectively calls on local authorities to carry out an audit of the housing stock in their area so that measures can be taken to conserve energy. That again will help the constituents whom I have described.
  Individuals are not just involved out of a sense of altruism or because of their concern for the environment, but because it also makes sound financial sense. A major thrust of the Government's energy policy is greater efficiency and lower prices, as we have heard, as well as removing burdens from the taxpayer—something of which we must not lose sight. We know that the nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million each week in 1979, and that they now contribute £55 million each week to the Exchequer. We know that domestic electricity prices have fallen by 8 per cent. in real terms, and that electricity customers in England and Wales received this year a £50 rebate on their bills following the sale of the National Grid. It is worth reminding the House that under the previous Labour Government, the price of electricity went up in cash terms by 2 per cent. every six weeks—some 16 per cent. a year.
  The average industrial gas price has fallen by 48 per cent. in real terms, while the domestic price—including VAT—has fallen by 18.5 per cent. in real terms. Consumers in the gas competition pilot area in the south-west are being offered discounts of up to 20 per cent. on the existing British Gas tariff.
  Oil prices are now lower in real terms than at any stage since oil was discovered in the North sea, and we have also heard some incredible statistics about the effects of privatisation on the coal industry. I had the honour of serving on the Committee that considered the Coal Industry Act 1992.
  These are tangible results of the Government's policies to open up markets to free competition and to privatise. Electricity bills have fallen, and they will fall also as a result of the reduction in the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales and changes to the nuclear energy agreement in Scotland. In June, Professor Littlechild announced that, as a result of nuclear privatisation, he expected to be able to reduce the fossil fuel levy from 10 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. This will result in reductions in typical household electricity bills of up to £20 a year.
  Time is short, and there are other matters upon which I would liked to have touched—in particular, the Liberal Democrats' latest proposal for a carbon tax. Such a tax would target car drivers, and particularly those who really need their cars such as elderly people in my constituency and those in rural areas. It is an ill-thought-out tax and will create great burdens, but that is not a matter for this
  1034
  evening. In conclusion, both Opposition parties are bankrupt of policy ideas on energy. They have nothing to offer the consumer or the shareholder.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Ken Purchase: The Conservative party is not bankrupt of policy because it does not have one. Its energy policy, as with so many things, is to rely on the market. I shall return to that point.
  It has been two short years since the Confederation of British Industry called on the Conservatives to provide a champion for industry. It wanted that because it took a sensible Keynesian approach to manufacturing and recognised that there must be partnership between industry, Government and the people. The Conservatives long believed that we could leave everything to the market. The first 15 years of their rule after 1979 were about the market. Their policy aim has been to privatise everything that they can. As the Government, they are entitled to do that. However, they have never recognised that there is a role in any economy for the pragmatic approach that some things are best done in one way, and others in another way, but that usually there is also a middle way.
  Without support from a Government committed to it, manufacturing industry will fail. Indeed, it has almost failed and is only now starting to make its way back. The energy industry shows the lack of a policy save that of leaving things to the market. That will not work because the market, sensibly, is driven by profit. The idea that we should exploit the cheapest form of energy and then move on to the next cheapest form is bound to lead to disaster because its effects on the rest of the country and, most importantly, on discovery and exploitation, are unpredictable.
  There is also the British Gas problem with take-or-pay contracts. It seems only a few short weeks since there were calls to assist British Gas because of the great expense of such contracts, which were negotiated only a few years ago. Now a report entitled, "The Disappearing Gas Bubble" suggests that, far from creating a loss, it is likely that British Gas will make a profit from those long-term contracts.
  In respect of oil, variations have been created in the short, medium and long-term time scales such that it is difficult, without a proper policy, to make any sense of the exploitation and production of energy sources. Industry cannot work—the wheels will not turn—without sources of energy. That is why energy policy must be at the heart of industrial policy.
  British Energy said that its decision not to proceed with Sizewell C and Hinckley Point C was taken because it was
  a sensible response to the realities of the current energy market which is characterised by an excess of generating capacity, falling electricity prices, and uncertainties over the structure of generating and distributing industries".
  It calls for a balanced energy policy.
  Our energy companies have been exposed to possible foreign buyers. The Americans have bought Midlands Electricity and any hope that the Government may have of creating a balanced energy policy sinks further into the sunset with each buy-out. The logic of the market is not to create competition ad infinitum but to create monopolies. That is the only way in which finance capital can work. Control is impossible and despite all our

  1035
  attempts to regulate, we will find that in this activity, which is so crucial to our manufacturing capacity, the state—the Government—will have to have a hand on the wheel.
  Conservative Members may ask how we would pay for renationalisation. Renationalisation is not the only option. It is right to point out, however, that if the Government had not spent, given away, wasted and thrown away all the money that they have received from North sea oil and from privatisations, for example, there would be money aplenty to renationalise those industries if that was the right and proper approach to creating an energy policy.
  The truth of the matter is that we cannot have an energy policy that makes any sense for the vital manufacturing sector under a laissez-faire system. Without a policy, manufacturing will always be at the mercy of finance capitalists, who see it as in their own interests to exploit that which brings them the fattest and quickest profits, without regard to what may happen in the future.
  There is such a long time horizon when considering energy exploitation and marketing, and it is right for us—for Opposition Members, at least—to ensure that there is a constant and sustainable flow of reasonably priced energy and that we avoid the rapid peaks and troughs that characterise the energy market. We must have a longer-term view to meet our responsibilities to unborn generations, and we must realise that only through a sensible, balanced energy policy will we achieve those responsibilities. We must realise that laissez-faire market economics, because of their internal logic, are incapable of ever delivering such a policy.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I was very entertained by the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). I do not know whether he intended to be amusing, although I suspect that he did not. When he was not frightening the House, however, he certainly was amusing. He seemed to suggest, for example, that a price could be too high and too low at the same time. He also pretended that he did not know anything about depreciation. The logical assumption is that he thinks that an old second-hand car should command the same price as a brand new car. If he believes that, I recommend that he tests the assumption.
  I am more concerned about the serious set of deficiencies in the Labour motion itself. It is about energy policy, but it makes no mention whatsoever of energy conservation. As hon. Members have already mentioned, Labour's motion is being debated—of all weeks—in the week in which representatives of the United Nations are discussing the impact of man's activities on the global climate. I find that timing utterly bizarre.
  Energy conservation is a very important part of the formula in the balances between supply and demand and between consumption and production. It should play an important role in this debate and in any discussion on energy. The Government have realised that fact, and they have introduced measures that deal with the need to take resolute action to achieve energy conservation.
  I have time to mention only one such measure, but it is an important one—the home energy efficiency scheme. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for
  1036
  Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency for the energy that he has put into making the scheme successful. Since it was introduced in 1991, 1.8 million households have benefited from grants made available to them to ensure that their properties are brought up to a high standard of energy conservation—in simple, low-technology terms, such as by the use of insulation. Many of my constituents have benefited from the scheme.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have accompanied representatives of the scheme to constituent's houses to see the installation of measures that not only reduce energy use and help with the environmental problems caused by pollution but that reduce the cost of the energy used by those people, many of whom are on low incomes. The average household benefiting from the scheme has had an annual reduction of more than £40 in its energy bills. In the last full financial year, the Government put some £105 million into the scheme. That is a worthwhile contribution to the problem of energy use, cost and conservation. It is a great shame that the Opposition should be so blind as to fail to recognise the part that that plays and therefore to include it in the motion.
  The motion is deficient in other ways, too. It is full of internal contradictions, which reflect the Labour party's deficiencies in energy policies and its approach to the energy industry. One question that is worth asking is: does the Labour party believe in a private sector energy industry? Labour Members owe the House a simple answer. They have opposed every measure that the Government have introduced slowly to privatise the entire industry over the past decade and more, yet they now pretend that they accept a private energy industry. However, their motion and other policy statements show that, in practice, they would restrict the market. They would bring back state planning and Government control so that we would see nationalisation in another guise. That would bring severe danger to all sectors of our economy.
  Mr. Battle: New Labour, new dangers.
  Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman admits as much.
  Gas consumers have benefited considerably from reductions in gas prices: industry has benefited from a 48 per cent. reduction; and domestic consumers from a 24.5 per cent. reduction. And electricity consumers have benefited from reductions in electricity prices: industry has benefited from a 10.5 per cent. reduction; and domestic consumers from an 8 per cent. reduction. Those benefits will be wiped out by a return to a command economy. Under a Labour Government, we would see the return of the sort of policies that contributed, in the last year of the last Labour Government, to an increase in the price of fuel by 2 per cent. every six weeks.
  Millions of ordinary people who have invested in shares in the energy industries would also lose. Under privatisation, shareholders have gained through the long-term increase in the value of their investments, and the large yields and returns that they have brought. They would lose all those benefits if the industry was so rigidly controlled that profits were squeezed to a minimum. The Labour party admits that that is its objective. Millions of members of the public who have invested in the industry and benefited from it would lose out.

  1037
  Taxpayers would also lose because, under a command economy, we would return to the day when, instead of taxpayers benefiting from £55 million in tax revenues, subsidies of nearly that sum would be required from the taxpayer.
  Finally, the industry would lose because, since privatisation, it has been set free to diversify, compete and strive for greater efficiency. It has been free to pursue activities in other areas where necessary. That is part of a free market economy. It is also free to change ownership because that, too, is part of a free enterprise economy. It all adds diversity, strength and flexibility, and drives towards efficiency and a better deal for consumers.
  All those benefits would go if the industry were put back into the state straitjacket. All that the Labour party has to offer are old policies dressed up in a new tinselled package, offered in a new way but representing exactly the same threats and weaknesses as its policies represented before. We should not be fooled by that.
  The motion is deficient by virtually every test. I bitterly regret the fact that the Labour party could not deal with the subject seriously today and look at the real issues and challenges that the future presents in terms of energy policies.
  Much needs to be said about the need to find new sources of energy supply, to find environmentally friendly methods of generating our energy and to limit our energy consumption, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) rightly said. That must be part of the formula, because we must be aware of the damage that is done to the environment by energy production and we must develop means of energy conservation that reduce the damage.
  It is an indictment of the Labour party's approach to this subject that its muddled, incomplete and cynical motion fails to address those underlying issues. It shows contempt for the arguments and challenges with which we should concern ourselves when dealing with the energy industry and the energy market.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am very conscious of the time, and I hope that the House will forgive me if my contribution to the debate is very much on a constituency issue. In the Sherwood constituency, there are still four collieries.
  I believe that the coal industry faces a major challenge. New contracts are due in 1998, and the challenge before the coal industry can be risen to. I estimate that the newly privatised coal industry is producing at £1.30 per kJ. I estimate that that price will have to come down to £1.10 to compete in the highly competitive market.
  In the long term—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I do not expect to have sub-conversations between the two Front Benches.
  Mr. Tipping: In the long term, there is a place for coal in the energy market. In the short term, we are likely to witness the growth of gas. In the medium term, it is likely that nuclear companies will diversify and go into gas. No new nuclear power stations will be built. When gas goes, coal will be our only national natural asset. That is why we need to keep it going.
  1038
  That is why we need to invest in clean coal technology. I notice that Japan spends more on clean coal technology than this country does. We must find devices to keep coal going during the next few years because, in the long term, coal will be our salvation. We need an energy policy that is not short-term but recognises the value of coal. Coal can be the cornerstone of that energy policy.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their condolences following my father's death in a mountaineering accident. In the House, many harsh words are often exchanged in the passion of debate, but when tragedy strikes, no more generous spirit is to be found anywhere.
  This has been an illuminating debate because it has exposed the great shortcomings in the Government's energy policy. In fact, they cannot even claim to have an energy policy. The Government abolished the Energy Secretary's office and the Select Committee on Energy. The casualties included not only tens of thousands of miners, electricity workers and gas workers but the distinguished hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who chaired the defunct Select Committee with such distinction.
  The Government have pursued a policy of privatisation, not for the prosperity of consumers in British industry, but to enable them to make short-term tax cuts. The main beneficiaries of that policy have been company directors and ex-Ministers, while consumers have often had to put up with poorer services. Even the supposed benefits of price cuts are eroded by the Government's tax increases.
  There is no concept in this country of any strategic importance of fuel. We are a major energy-producing country without an effective voice in Cabinet. Coal, our greatest natural resource, the foundation of our industrial power, has been relegated to a minor role. The standards in our pits have continued to tumble and accidents have reached horrifying levels. On oil, we have a licensing and compliance regime that has made Britain the softest touch to the multinationals. Gas, once the Marks and Spencer of energy, is now judged to deliver the poorest service. Untold damage has been done to public confidence in nuclear energy by complacency about the ownership and control of that potentially hazardous resource. There has been minimal investment in alternative energy—such as gas and electricity for cars, wind power and wave power—and there have been cuts in the energy conservation budget. We condemn those Tory failures.
  As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Labour party has a battery of positive energy policies to tackle the real problems of the 1990s. The energy industry must be regulated for the benefit of consumers, not producers; there must be specific protection for vulnerable consumers, who must not be left prey to higher prices and no choice of supply; there must be wider access rights for rural households; there must be a major scheme to conserve energy and to bring the benefits of energy savings to every household; there must be energy labelling so that buyers of products know how much energy an appliance consumes; and there must be a windfall tax that attacks the boardroom abusers—we do not need the Tory tax, a VAT on millions of ordinary consumers.

  1039
  The Minister put four questions to the Labour Front Bench, and I shall answer them. First, he asked whether the windfall tax will be retrospective. It will be based on the profits and the investment record of each of the utilities. Secondly, he asked which electricity companies will be taxed. Every company is being scrutinised. Thirdly, he asked how much money will be raised by the tax. Approximately £3 billion will be raised. Finally, he asked how long it will last. It will last as long as it takes to achieve a proper balance in the charges, profits and investment strategies of companies—and it will last as long as salaries as long as telephone numbers are paid to the directors in the boardroom.
  It is hard for Ministers to face reality. On 18 June, when he last addressed the House, the Minister said:
  We believe that the privatisation of Nuclear Electric will be as successful as previous privatisations."—[official Report, 18 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 779.]
  It has been such a flop that they can hardly give the shares away. The Minister was an early advocate of giving the shares away—he gave a powerful speech in favour of doing just that on 21 July 1980, and he has never regained any sense of reality. Since the present Minister took office in 1992, energy consumers have been hit by the imposition of a VAT, the closure of 200 high street gas showrooms and 400 electricity showrooms, and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, including two thirds of the British Gas home energy advisers.
  However, the Minister claims that consumers are better off. Post offices are no substitute for high street showrooms, where people could get advice on their bills, energy efficiency and appliances. People can pay their bills in post offices, but many post offices do not allow them to pay their bills for free—they add 88p to the bills of senior citizens and others. The Government have created a two-class system—some people are paying up to 12 per cent. more for their gas than others because they have bank accounts and direct debits while others are on pre-payment meters.
  Every consumer wants to know why they are paying such high prices for fuel. We had the fastest falling raw energy prices in the 1980s and the 1990s, and only a shower of incompetents could fail to bring prices down, no matter who owned the utilities. Between gas privatisation in 1986 and now, gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent. and the cost to consumers has fallen by only 19 per cent. What has happened to the missing 4 per cent? The Government taxed it—they added VAT to fuel and wiped out any claimed savings from privatisation. They added £24 to the average household's gas bill—the Tory fuel tax.
  Since electricity was privatised in 1990, the average bill has increased by 21 per cent., yet the cost of coal has decreased by 20 per cent. and the cost of gas has decreased by 9 per cent. The Government have taxed any benefits from privatisation and they have allowed the companies to pocket the savings. The latest abuse is the mis-selling of gas contracts, which has been highlighted in the debate tonight.
  I answered the Minister's four questions, so I ask his hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy to answer four questions from the Labour party. Will he undertake not to increase VAT on fuel? Will he
  1040
  take action to restore high safety standards in our pits? Will he reinvest in the home energy conservation programmes? Will he support public transport in order to conserve energy and protect our environment in the long term? We suspect that his answers to all four questions will be no, no, no and no. The Government have nothing to offer and that is why they should go.
  9.49 pm
  The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I came to the Chamber tonight looking forward to the debate with some enthusiasm. As the seconds tick away to the next general election, I hoped that we would hear something about the Opposition's energy policy. I am in the same position as the man leaving a hall where a Member of Parliament was speaking. He was asked how long the Member of Parliament had been speaking and he replied half an hour. He was then asked what the Member of Parliament had said, and the man replied, "Well, nothing yet". As I rise to speak at the Dispatch Box, I am no wiser about the Labour party's policy than I was when the debate began.
  The Opposition have had a good go at the Government—that is what Oppositions are for; it is all part of the game. As to policy, we got a big, fat zero. One might say that it is enough for the Opposition simply to oppose—there is no need for them to do anything else. However, is negativity the right approach of a potential Government who are waiting to provide positive leadership to voters? No, it is not. Whatever the slogans and however skilled the airbrush techniques of the new Labour spin doctors, the centralised ethos of the old Labour party has not disappeared; it lies like an old rotting log in the stream. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) should keep quiet, because I shall come to his contribution and I will sort him out.
  The Labour party's policy manifests itself in schizophrenic behaviour and policy announcements. It is bedeviled by paradox and inconsistency. The Opposition do not like privatisation, but they will not renationalise. They want to fine companies with a windfall tax, but they do not want the consumer to pay any part of the cost. They complain when people make a profit from buying privatised shares and then complain when others make a loss. They say that they want competition, but they hedge their bets by restricting market freedom with controls on pay, retrospective taxation and limitations on the regulator's independence. The list goes on and on, and it makes the Vicar of Bray seem the model of theological consistency.
  The Opposition would impose the same old controls. They want to tell the industry what to do and what to spend: it is the return of the lunchtime directive. It did not work before and it will not work now. It is instructive to recall that a former Labour energy spokesman admitted exactly that in the House. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) came to the House and spelt out the Liberal Democrats' policies. I do not agree with them, but in so doing, he has increased in my estimation.
  I return to some of the comments made during the debate, and in particular to the contribution by the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
  Mr. Battle: I am really worried.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman should be worried. There was plenty of sound and fury—it obviously rubbed

  1041
  off on his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths)—but he was a little short on reality. He could not grasp the difference between capital costs of construction and market values. He took a 10 second gratuitous swipe at the non-fossil fuel obligation and brushed aside the 151 renewable energy projects that are generating some 335 MW. He completely ignored the other 600 projects that are under contract.
  At the same time, the hon. Gentleman was dismissive of the new markets that are creating employment in the export field through selling abroad equipment for the renewable sector. The hon. Gentleman made some very serious and damaging allegations regarding the flotation of British Energy. He claimed that information was suppressed, praying in aid that informative document, the Hinkley newsletter dated 1 July. The station manager at Hinkley Point has been contacted. He confirmed that the newsletter, although dated 1 July, was not put out until 4 July, and that the section regarding the weld was not drafted until 4 July. I give the hon. Member for Leeds, West a chance to apologise to the House and my right hon. Friend for the gross and unfair allegations that he made against him.
  Mr. Battle: I will withdraw nothing until the Minister tells me why on earth he employs a station manager who writes a letter on 4 July and dates it 1 July.
  Mr. Page: I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to admit that he was wrong, and to withdraw what he had said. He has not done so, and I am afraid that he has cheapened himself by his response.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) commented on coal safety. He has a record of concern about that, which I fully acknowledge. I can tell him that a recent National Audit Office report on the sale of British Coal's mining operation records, dated May 1996, said that the Health and Safety Executive was satisfied that safety was given a high priority in the sale, but what mattered was not so much ownership as the existence of a robust and regulative framework. The HSE is publishing a special report later this month, and I look forward to it with confidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) opened up the exciting possibility of energy in this country driven entirely by nuclear power, and—rightly, in my view—drew attention to the value of feedstock. My hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) drew attention to the important work that the Government were doing on energy efficiency, which the Labour party completely missed. I thank my hon. Friends for the tribute that they paid to my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones) for the informative and valuable work that is being done in that regard.
  During the past few months, much has been made of the metamorphosis within the Labour party—or new Labour, as we are supposed to say. I always thought that sticking a big label on something saying "new and improved" was a fairly cheap and fast way of raising the market profile without necessarily having to go through the tedious business of actually improving the product—but it carries a few risks. Eventually the consumer sees through it, recognises that this wonderful new brand has nothing to offer—it is the same tired old product as
  1042
  before—and resolves not to buy the product again. That sounds exactly like the Labour party to me: a lick of paint, a toothy smile, but the same—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I had occasion earlier to reprimand the Front Benches for making seated interventions. I note that that now applies to the Bench below the Gangway.
  Mr. Page: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  It seems to me that, in the Labour party, the same old command-and-control instincts are lurking in the shadows. As today's debate has illustrated yet again, the fact that Labour has been out of power for so long has aroused an unhealthy desire to tell everyone exactly what to do.
  Let me return to the original theme. The Labour party has no ideas of its own, and, in particular, no ideas that anyone would like. If no one believes me, let me add that I have a copy of "New Labour New Life for Britain". That document—a real snip at £10—shows how much Labour cares about the energy sector, that £1 billion sector on which many jobs depend. It refers to the windfall tax. We know that the Labour party is very good at raising taxes. Then there is another comment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South spoke of a battery of positive measures; the battery is, apparently, the
  "extraordinary benefit of North Sea Oil."
  That is the Labour party's energy policy: that is precisely what they are offering to the country. That is called "raising Britain's potential" and the "stakeholder economy".
  But we know what we are doing. We know that we brought radical change to the energy sector. We have brought benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices and better services, and I know that that is the way to go forward. I draw my remarks to a close by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the work that he has done in this context.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 294.

  Division No. 204]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beggs, Roy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Boateng, Paul

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  1043

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  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)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eastham, Ken

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fraser, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  Garrett, John

  Madden, Max

  George, Bruce

  Maddock, Diana

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahon, Alice

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marek, Dr John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martlew, Eric

  Graham, Thomas

  Maxton, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michael, Alun

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  1044

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Short, Clare

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Simpson, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spellar, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  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

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tyler, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Purchase, Ken

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Peter Hain.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowis, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bates, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  1045

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyne For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant Sir Anthony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charies

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charies

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  1046

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Ftt Hon Sir Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Waterson, Nigel

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sproat, lain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stephen, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stewart, Allan

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Sweeney, Walter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on its privatisation of the former state energy sector; notes that its market-based energy policies have led to lower prices and better services for consumers; and looks forward to the further benefits to consumers which will flow from the opening up of the gas and electricity markets in 1998.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  >That, at this day's sitting, the Damages Bill [Lords] and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

  Damages Bill [Lords]
  As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Damages Bill [Lords]
    Clause 5

      MEANING OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT
      10.17 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter)I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 13, at end insert—
      '(8) Where—

      (a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury on terms whereby the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments;

      (b) the person against whom the claim or action is brought (or, if he is insured against the claim, his insurer) purchases one or more annuities; and

      (c) a subsequent agreement is made under which the annuity is, or the annuities are, assigned in favour of the person entitled to the payments (so as to secure that from a future date he receives the payments as the annuitant under the annuity or annuities),

      then, for the purposes of section 4 above, the agreement settling the claim or action shall be treated as a structured settlement and any such annuity assigned in favour of that person shall be treated as an annuity purchased for him pursuant to the settlement.
      (9) Subsections (2) to (7) above shall apply to an agreement to which subsection (8) above applies as they apply to a structured settlement as defined in subsection (1) above (the reference in subsection (6) to subsection (1)(b) being read as a reference to subsection (8)(b)).'.
      The purpose of clauses 4 and 5 is to enhance the protection conferred on structured settlement beneficiaries by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 from 90 to 100 per cent. When a new settlement is set up, an annuity is purchased for the beneficiary, and there is no problem. Clause 4 will give him 100 per cent. protection in the unlikely event—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is too much noise. Those who are wanting to engage in conversations, please go outside.
      Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the voices are a chorus of support.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for tabling an amendment in Committee to draw attention to doubts about whether the clauses would always operate as they were intended to. There is doubt about whether the clauses would increase the protection in cases where the settlement had originally been set up on a different basis and the annuity was formally assigned to the beneficiary at a later date. That will most often be so when a settlement was made before the reforms that we introduced in the Finance Act 1995. Since those reforms, the parties to existing settlements can modify their arrangements, and usually it is sensible and more convenient for all if the annuity is assigned to the beneficiary.
      This is a technical amendment to ensure completely that the enhanced policyholders' protection conferred by clause 4 will apply regardless of whether the person entitled to the payments becomes the policyholder of the
      1048
      annuity that is central to the structured settlement. The amendment makes a good Bill better, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: The Opposition welcome the Government's positive response to the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It is a worthwhile and useful Bill and we wish it well.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    TRUSTS OF LAND AND APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES BILL [LORDS]
    As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Tunisia) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.>
      FEES AND CHARGES
      That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Overseas Assistance and Public Path Orders) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
      That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
      ROAD TRAFFIC
      That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

      FAMILY LAW
      That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Selby Bypass
    10.20 pm
    Mr. Michael Alison: I rise to present a petition on behalf of approximately 5,000 signatories from the district of Selby in North Yorkshire. The petition reads:
    That traffic congestion in the town of Selby severely disrupts its social and economic life and inhibits inward investment in the town.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House persuade the Department of Transport to construct a new bypass for the town as soon as the statutory bypass procedures have been completed.
    The statutory procedures will be completed in the late summer, before the House returns in the autumn. Therefore, it is essential that the construction is put in hand as soon as practicable after that.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Stone of Destiny
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
    10.21 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important constitutional matter. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Wednesday 3 July that, on the advice of Ministers, the Queen had agreed that the Stone of Destiny—which I call the Stone of Scone—should be returned to Scotland, I asked him a question, which I now repeat:
    "My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered."—[0fficial Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 974]
    As I was the first hon. Member to be called after the Front-Bench spokesmen, I can justifiably claim to be the first person to request that the stone be returned to Scone. I welcome the fact that many individuals and groups have since joined me in my request.
    I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), who is in her place, has been getting some copy in the local press. She has given the impression that the city of Perth has a claim to Scone. I should make it quite clear that Scone is in my constituency and will remain in my constituency after the boundary changes. The hon. Lady has been getting what I consider to be not very good publicity for the Stone of Scone, when she was reported in The Courier last Saturday as saying:
    "We ask for jobs and they give us a stone."
    I find that quite sad and depressing.
    I find it even more sad and depressing that the hon. Lady should write to me, on stationery on which the signature is obviously printed, asking me to support a petition launching a request for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Perthshire. That is a bit much, given that Scone is in my constituency—
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Walker: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] This is an Adjournment debate, and one does not give way in an Adjournment debate unless one has previously made arrangements to do so.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Walker: I even welcome those who were less than enthusiastic—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There is a point of order.
    Mr. Salmond: Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is an Adjournment debate, with the rules attending to an Adjournment debate, and that we are not

    1051
    debating the excellent parliamentary performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham)—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a waste of time, because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That sort of action does two things: it destroys the credibility of the case and it demeans those involved.
    I believe that we should welcome even those who were less than enthusiastic about the decision to return the stone to Scotland. I shall say more about the Perthshire petition later, because it is important. As everyone knows, the reason given for returning the stone to Scotland was that it is the 700th anniversary of its theft from Scone abbey.
    The logic behind that calls for the stone to be returned to the place whence it was stolen. I know that Scone abbey no longer exists, so there will be pressure to place the stone in a suitably consecrated building. We cannot rebuild the abbey, although I can see the merit in building a suitable place of worship in the difficult and dangerous world in which we live. Sadly, Scotland already has too many empty or half-empty places of worship, so rebuilding the abbey is not a realistic or viable option.
    So what am I proposing? On Friday 5 July, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and many of Scotland's Members of Parliament paid a visit to a special building in Dumfries that houses the remains of Scotland's bard, Robert Burns. My proposal is that the Burns example can be a guide to what we should do with the stone.
    A suitable building should be built on the site of the abbey. It would not need to be large—just big enough to house the stone, with sufficient space for the many visitors who would be expected. It would need to be a secure building and, as it would be on the old abbey site, it could be a properly consecrated building.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my hon. Friend know that one of the misgivings that some of us have had about the decision is that insufficient attention has been given to the stone's religious connotations? Does he therefore accept the fact that his support for the principle that it be held on consecrated ground is greatly to be welcomed?
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall say more about consecrated ground later. The building must also be open to the public throughout the year.
    I shall now talk about the history of the stone, because I believe that other parts of Scotland will claim that the stone should be brought to them. Legend has it that the stone's history goes back to the time when Jacob used it as a pillow when, as is described in the Bible, he rested his head in Bethel. There is also the somewhat romantic view that the stone arrived in Scotland via Egypt, Spain and Ireland.
    It is also claimed by some that Irish kings sat on the sandstone slab when they were crowned, and it is further claimed that the stone groaned if the sitter was royal but
    1052
    stayed ominously silent if he was a pretender. I have no knowledge of the stone groaning during the past 700 years, or before that when it was located in Scone.
    I understand that the stone was brought to Scone during the ninth century. In 838 AD, Kenneth MacAlpin, King of Scots, brought the stone to Scone. For almost 500 years, it was at Scone. In accordance with custom, the King of Scots was not crowned at the beginning of his reign but was "set upon the stone". Scone was the legendary crowning seat of the kings of Scotland, and 48 kings of Scotland were crowned there, including Macbeth and Robert the Bruce.
    In 1296, King Edward I of England—known in history as the "Hammer of the Scots"—removed the stone from Scone abbey. Some claim that the stone stolen may not have been Stone of Scone, and that the abbott and his monks switched stones. Be that as it may—what cannot be disputed is that Edward I removed what he believed to be the Stone of Scone, or the Stone of Destiny. The stone removed to Westminster abbey was used in the coronation of English and then British monarchs after James VI of Scotland became James I of Britain. The stone was certainly believed to be genuine and was used for those purposes.
    What also is not in dispute is that on Christmas day 1950, a group of Scottish nationalists believed the stone at Westminster was the Stone of Scone, because they removed the stone from Westminster abbey and returned it to Scotland. I understand that the papers about this and other matters concerning the stone have been released today. I also understand that the papers confirm that the stone in the abbey at Westminster is the stone that was removed by the nationalists in 1950.
    The 1970 files have been examined, and I understand that the national library of Scotland has been convinced by the X-rays that show the position of the bolt used in the repair to the damage caused during the removal from Westminster abbey on Christmas day 1950. I also understand that a clerk of works at Westminster abbey, William Bishop, examined the returned stone and declared it to be the stone that he had earlier examined in detail while it had been in the abbey before Christmas day 1950.
    In 1984, the late and sadly missed Donald Stewart moved a motion in the House calling for the stone at Westminster to be returned to Scotland. The motion said:
    "Its retention in England all this time is outrageous and unjustified."
    So Donald Stewart and his nationalist colleagues believed the stone at Westminster to be genuine at that time—otherwise he would not have moved the motion.
    Then there was the promise, or pledge, given to return the stone to Scotland. The 14th-century treaty of Northampton decreed that the stone should
    "be returned to the place from whence it caim."
    We all know "from whence it caim"—from Scone in my constituency.
    Perth and Kinross council, the Perthshire tourist board and the Perthshire chamber of commerce—supported by the Earl and Countess of Mansfield, the owners of Scone palace—have initiated a claim of right petition. That petition is designed to press the case for bringing the famous symbol of Scotland back to the place "from whence it caim"—Scone.

    1053
    It is clear that the Government's advice to the Queen to return the stone to Scotland was good advice, and the people of Scotland, in the main, have responded positively. Even the politicians who made rude comments at the time of the Prime Minister's statement now have to acknowledge that the people of Scotland, in the main, have welcomed the Government's advice to return the stone to Scotland. The stone is a great exciter of public opinion, and the debate today is about where the returned stone should be located.
    Arbroath has made a claim and I understand that Argyll, Stirling and Edinburgh have also declared that the stone should be located in their areas. Robbie the Pict, not to be outdone, has suggested that the middle of the North sea is where the stone should be deposited. Perhaps he meant that the new age travellers who gave us all the trouble at Dunnichen should be deposited in the middle of the North sea.
    There is also the matter of the stone's links with religion and the idea, which I support, that wherever the stone is housed in Scotland, it must be in a suitable building on consecrated ground. It is also claimed that the stone should be located with other Scottish regalia. The proposal for a kingship centre on the site of Scone abbey meets all the requirements of history, as well as those of the stone's relationship with religious belief.
    A kingship centre at Scone, with its links with Kenneth MacAlpin, Macbeth and Robert the Bruce, is the only realistic way to give the returned stone a suitable, prestigious home in Scotland. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister to give me an answer this evening, but I expect that the claim of Scone will be given the full and proper consideration that it merits.
    I cannot pretend that I was not surprised by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, yet following the anniversary of the second world war and the public reaction to such events of recent British history, I should not have been surprised. People, including the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, care deeply about the Union, the monarchy and our history. The more I think about the need to recognise the importance of history and the place that symbols and events have in the minds of the people, the more I realise how in this insecure and dangerous world it is wise to acknowledge the importance of the Union of the Crowns and of the 1707 Act of Union.
    The Stone of Scone is much more than a piece of sandstone; it is a symbol of Scotland as a separate, unique nation. It is also a symbol of the Union between Scotland and England—a Union that I believe has brought great benefits to all its parts. That is why I believe that it was right to make the advice to the Queen and why I was so pleased that Madam Speaker agreed to this debate. I am proud to be a Scot; I am also proud to be British. The Stone of Scone—the Stone of Destiny—is a symbol of Scotland and Britain. It is part of the cement that holds the Union together. Returning the stone strengthens the Union.
    The Government were right to advise the Queen to honour the 14th-century treaty of Northampton and return the stone. Returning it to the place "from whence it cairn" could not be more clear or precise. It means returning the stone to Scone and building a kingship centre at the site of Scone abbey—consecrated ground. It means building a
    1054
    centre worthy of the stone by public subscription so that the centre, like the stone, will belong to the people and to the present and future monarchs of Scotland and Britain.
    10.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate, on highlighting the close relationship between Scone in his constituency and the Stone of Destiny and on the persuasive way in which he advanced his case. There are many Scottish Members present, but none from the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. That will be noted.
    The Stone of Destiny is the premier symbol of Scottish kingship and, consequently, an embodiment of our cultural and historical identity. It was associated with the enthronement of Scottish kings as far back as 840 AD, when—as my hon. Friend suggested—Kenneth MacAlpin, King of Scots, took it to Scone.
    The stone's legendary origins, however, are much more ancient. It was mythologically identified with the biblical Jacob's pillow—as narrated in Genesis 28, 10–12—when he dreamed of a ladder to heaven,
    "And he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep."
    Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I of England invaded Scotland and removed the stone from Scone abbey, a building that has since been completely demolished. King Edward's claim to the stone was by right of conquest, but that fiercely contested and short-lived claim lapsed in 1328, when, as an ancillary arrangement attached to the treaty of Northampton, King Edward III ordered the stone's return to Scotland. A writ to that effect was issued on 1 July 1328 under the Privy Seal. The King's writ was defied by the stone's then custodian, and Queen Isabella, the Queen Mother, who was to have taken it north, departed without it.
    Against that background, the Prime Minister's historic announcement to the House on 3 July 1996 could be regarded as a belated carrying out of the wishes of Edward III and of English obligations under the treaty of Northampton. In contemporary terms, it should be seen as a gesture of good will to the Scottish people and a confident assertion of their full and equal partnership in the Union.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated:
    "After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation."—[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 974.]
    That importance is evidenced by the vigorous debate taking place across Scotland, as an ever-growing number of venues and communities, such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside and his constituents, press their rival claims to house the Stone of Destiny. Further testimony is provided by the volume of correspondence in the Scottish and British press.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No; I must deal with the many points made in my hon. Friend's speech.

    1055
    The Prime Minister announced that Scottish and Church opinion would be consulted. Accordingly, today we have issued a consultation paper, which has been circulated to all appropriate organisations and individuals, inviting the general public to contribute their views on the disposition of the stone. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), like all hon. Members, will be able to send her representations on behalf of her constituents.
    Ms Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. This debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, and I must deal with the points that he made. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross will have an opportunity in due course.
    Since the measures that we have announced would be meaningless without public confidence in the stone's authenticity, about which rumours have abounded since its temporary removal from the abbey in 1950, we have today published the confidential files relating to the authentication tests carried out on the stone.
    The newly published documentation consists of a set of six files relating to the removal of the Stone of Destiny in 1950 and its return in 1951. The file that is likely to command the greatest public interest is that dealing with authentication, Scottish Record Office file HH41/2099. The investigation that it records was triggered in response to claims advanced in 1972 that the "real" Stone of Destiny was lodged in St Columba's church, Lochee, in Dundee. Bailie Robert Gray, a monumental sculptor in Glasgow, had repaired the stolen stone, and the inquiry was concerned to establish that no last-minute substitution had taken place before its return.
    The papers record the very firm conclusions of William Kerr, chief constable of Dunbartonshire—who had been the detective inspector in charge of the hunt for the stone in 1951—that the real stone was returned. They also include a report, in 1951, from the clerk of works at Westminster abbey, setting out his reasons for being certain that the stone that was returned was genuine.
    In scientific terms, the papers include a report of July 1973 from the Home Office police scientific development branch of a radiographic examination of the stone, which confirms that it was broken and was repaired by insertion of three metal bolts. That confirms Chief Constable Kerr's report that the original stone had been repaired in that manner while it was in Bailie Gray's care. All that supports the testimony of Ian Hamilton, QC—one of my brother advocates, and one of the four who took the stone in 1950—that the returned stone was authentic.
    On the consultation process and the criteria that should apply in determining where the stone should be housed, the consultation paper states:
    "The place where the Stone is housed should clearly have strong links with the historic past and the surroundings should support and enhance the solemn and historic significance of the Stone itself and should be devoid of incongruous features which might conflict with that. The physical arrangements and ambient conditions for housing and displaying the Stone should be fitting and dignified; both these and the general location should meet the most stringent security requirements.
    1056
    Accessibility is clearly important. The Stone is presently housed in Westminster Abbey which is open to the public throughout the year and is visited by very large numbers of people. The Stone's new Scottish home should similarly be readily accessible, open all year round and capable of accommodating a continuing high level of visitors without strain. It should also be capable of offering interpretative material of high quality which helps visitors to understand the Stone's historic and ceremonial significance.
    Clearly, the Stone should be kept in a place of solemn character. It is currently housed on consecrated ground and there is obviously a case for considering whether its Scottish home should be in a building set aside for religious purposes. Views are invited on this point."
    We are inviting comments in response to the consultation paper from the public at large and from experts and those with a special interest. I hope that there will be a full and thoughtful response, so that a decision can be reached next month and arrangements made to bring the stone north and install it in its new Scottish home with suitable solemnity.
    As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister, in his statement of 3 July, said:
    "The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe's oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret's chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles' cathedral. There may be other options."— [Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 973.]
    My hon. Friend made an eloquent case, on behalf of his constituents, for bringing the stone to Scone. We shall certainly take that into account along with all the other representations that we receive. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot be drawn further tonight on where the final choice might lie.
    I hope, however, that the whole House will join my hon. Friend and me in welcoming the decision that the stone should return to Scotland. The Stone of Destiny is the stuff of legend and history. It is dear to the hearts of the Scottish people. We all look forward to welcoming it home.
    The decision to return the Stone of Destiny to Scotland was both historic and courageous. Inevitably, it has been attended by a degree of controversy. Much of that controversy, however, is based on misunderstanding. Let us be clear about the significance of this event.
    Some commentators have seen this event as a precedent for repatriation of other historical objects. The Queen, advised by her Ministers, has every right to be consulted about the destination of her property within her realm. The transfer of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland in no way alienates it from the United Kingdom, within which it will still repose.
    The stone will be returned for the coronation ceremonies of all future sovereigns of the United Kingdom. On those solemn occasions, the reuniting of the stone with the coronation chair will potently symbolise the Union of Scotland and England under the Crown of the United Kingdom. A century before there was a Union of the Parliaments, Scotland and England were joined by the Union of the Crowns, in 1603. At that time, the King of Scots peacefully inherited the throne of England, thus achieving, in peace and good will, what Edward I and Edward II had been frustrated from accomplishing by force 300 years earlier.
    I warmly welcome the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. It is fitting that, during the periods between coronations when it is not required to fulfil its solemn

    1057
    function, it should repose in its historic homeland. But that homeland is also part of the United Kingdom, of which the Stone of Destiny is now a significant symbol.
    My hon. Friend struck a strong chord with me when he said that he was proud to be a Scot. So am I and, like him, I am equally proud to be British. I hope that I shall never have to choose between the two. So, in a way. it is with the Stone of Destiny. It is part of the common heritage of Scotland and Britain. The recognition of its Scottish identity complements its vital role in cementing the combined sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
    I strongly congratulate my hon. Friend on the service that he has done the House in allowing us to explore the matter further, and his representations will be taken into account. I value the reality—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross will have a chance to make representations.
    I value the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister had the foresight and vision to see that the matter was of tremendous importance to the Scots. It will never be forgotten by the Scots that this gesture has been made when there has been a refusal to make it for 700 years.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Nothing can detract from that point, not even the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in an Adjournment debate, for the
    1058
    Secretary of State for Scotland, clearly audible, to tell the Minister at the Dispatch Box to keep going, to exclude my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is again a bogus point of order. The Minister must have been in order—
    Mr. Salmond: Balls.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman right?
    Mr. Salmond: Of course I would withdraw that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to think of a parliamentary alternative, but I am objecting—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman certainly did not find a parliamentary alternative there. He was completely out of order. I take it that he has withdrawn.
    Mr. Salmond: I withdraw the remark and submit, "Nonsense."
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36015]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In the departments of economic development, education, finance and personnel and the Northern Ireland Office a total of £81,959 was spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. To provide this information for the departments of the environment, health and social services and agriculture would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colin Duffy
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, columns 477–78, what payments have been made by the RUC to Mr. Colin Duffy; and on what dates. [36264]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The RUC has made no payments to Mr. Colin Duffy.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Debt
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on trends in the level of national debt since 1990. [35821]

  The Prime Minister
  There are a number of different measures of public debt. On the measure used for the European Union excessive deficits procedure, the general Government gross debt—GGGD/GDP—ratio remains lower than any other EU member state apart from Luxembourg and France.

  Since 1991, the GGGD/GDP ratio has averaged 44 per cent. Under the last Labour Government, the GGGD/GDP ratio averaged 62 per cent.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessments he has made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages to the United Kingdom of the European Court of Justice. [37734]

  The Prime Minister
  The advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of the European Court of Justice were set out in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations".

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [36062]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July. [36063]

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

  Berlin Bombing 1986
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 24 June,Official Report, column 14, what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with (a) the German, (b) the Lebanese and (c) the United States authorities about the activities of Yassar al-Shuraidi alias Yousef-Salam; and if he will make a statement. [36926]

  The Prime Minister
  We have had occasional contact with the German and United States' authorities about the activities of Yassar al-Shuraidi alias Yousef Salam, but not with the Lebanese authorities, with whom there is no reason to do so.

  Bilateral discussions are conducted on the basis of confidence and trust between interlocutors. The substance of such discussions cannot be made public.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewage Treatment, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the deadline for an application from Southern Water for the transfer of flows from Woodvale, Cowes, Ryde and Norton to Sandown; and what alterations to the treatment of sewage for these outfalls would be required to comply with the EC urban wastewater treatment directive if they are not so transferred. [36820]

  Mr. Clappison
  The urban waste water treatment directive requires appropriate treatment to be provided by the end of 2000. If the discharges form Woodvale, Cowes, Ryde and Norton are transferred out of the Solent then an application will have to be submitted in order to meet this deadline. If the discharges remain in the Solent secondary treatment will be required for each of them and they will have to comply with the same timescale.

  Sandown Bay
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies the Environment Agency is undertaking of the sub-surface current in Sandown bay. [36845]

  Mr. Clappison
  All studies relevant to the assessment of continual high natural dispersion area status at Sandown bay are being undertaken by Southern Water Services. These are comprehensive in accordance with national guidelines and include modelling of water
  431
  movement. The Environment Agency will assess these studies and will not certify that HNDA status can continue unless it is satisfied that the results justify this response.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the difference in the designation of the waters of the Solent and Sandown bay so far as future treatment requirements are concerned. [36821]

  Mr. Clappison
  Sandown bay is designated as a high natural dispersion area. The directive allows for a minimum of primary treatment for discharges into high natural dispersion areas, subject to comprehensive studies, currently being conducted, demonstrating that primary treated discharges will not adversely affect the environment. If this is not demonstrated by the studies, secondary treatment will be required. The Solent is not designated as a high natural dispersion area. Sewage discharges into the Solent serving a population equivalent of greater than 2,000 would be subject to secondary treatment.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the four-yearly review of the designation of Sandown bay as a high natural dispersion area to be completed. [36819]

  Mr. Clappison
  In accordance with the deadline stipulated in the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994, the first four yearly review of the designation of Sandown bay as a high natural dispersion area is proposed to be completed by the end of 1997.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations the Health and Safety Executive has received in each of the last five years from employees concerned that their employer has not ensured that they have their eyes tested in accordance with regulations; how many of these inquiries have led to prosecutions; and if he will make a statement. [37079]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on representations from employees concerning eye tests is not readily available in the form requested. No prosecutions have been brought by the Health and Safety Executive concerning the provision of eye tests.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total annual expenditure of his Department on the Isle of Wight, including the cost of administration. [36914]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The annual expenditure of my Department on the Isle of Wight during the year 1995–96 was over £69 million.

  The indicative or planned expenditure for 19961995–97 is over £71 million.
  432
  These figures include:

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  Housing investment programme allocation

  1,797,000

  1,616,000

  Revenue support grant

  40,369,000

  39,880,000

  Non-domestic rates

  26,855,000

  30,019,000

  Regional innovation grant (approximately)

  80,000

  80,000

  SRB challenge fund

  Nil

  169,000

  River Thames Working Party
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the River Thames working party indicating who appointed them; and what salary and expenses they are paid. [37197]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Thames advisory group provides advice to the Secretary of State for the Environment on a range of issues relating to the River Thames. It is chaired by the Secretary of State and its members are: the Minister for Transport in London, Alan Baxter, Michael Cassidy, Sir Philip Dowson, Paul Finch, Councillor Nicky Gavron, Christopher Howes, Simon Jenkins, Stuart Lipton, Richard MacCormac, Christopher Moran, Sir Richard Rogers, Eric Sorensen, Stewart Steven and Kim Wilkie. Members are appointed by invitation of the Secretary of State and receive no salary or expenses.

  The River Thames working group considers transport issues related to the Thames. It is chaired by the Minister for Transport in London and its members are: David Bayliss, Robin Clement, David Jeffery, Fred Manson, Eric Sorensen and Irving Yass. Members are appointed by invitation of the Minister and receive no salary or expenses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 694 about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37540]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The examination of about 36,5421 files dating back to 1987–88.

  1 Source: POLIS.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official report, column 710, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The examination of about 30,7741 files dating back to 1988–89.

  1 Source: POLIS.

  Limestone Pavements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter G/PSO/8040/96 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what assessment he has made of the success of the Limestone pavement action group's attempts to raise public awareness of the problem
  433
  of vandalism against limestone pavements and the campaign to highlight the alternative rockery materials available; and if he will make a statement. [36646]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The Government are content that the provisions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to protect limestone pavements are adequate. However, the limestone pavement action group's efforts to draw the public's attention to the need to conserve this important habitat are welcome.

  Residential Apartments
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the companies who lease residential apartments at Birmingham Heartlands, Black Country, London Docklands, Merseyside development corporation, Trafford Park and Tyne and Wear; and if he will make a statement. [37544]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Lists of the companies which lease residential apartments in these areas are not held by the respective urban development corporations.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Ordnance Survey strategic plan for 1996–2001. [37408]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have approved the Ordnance Survey strategic plan for 1996–2001 and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre executive agency for 1996–97.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The agency's principal target for 1996–97 is to achieve a net operating surplus, excluding rent, of £493,000, after trading costs, and non-cash and notional costs, or of £1.03 million gross operating surplus.

  The agency's other main targets are:

  a) to achieve total revenue of £6.297 million;

  b) to increase the proportion of events with more than 200 delegates to 26 per cent.;

  c) to increase the proportion of target revenue achieved six months in advance to 50 per cent.;

  d) to achieve at least four out of the following five quality of service targets:

  an overall score for quality of service in client questionnaires of at least 77 per cent.;

  99 per cent. of clients completing the client questionnaire to report that they would use the centre again;

  the number of complaints received to be less than five per 100 events;

  to achieve an average response time in dealing with complaints of less than 10 working days;

  and to achieve at least one major industry award.

  These targets reflect the agency's successful bid in the recent market test of the management of the conference centre, whose outcome was announced on Thursday 13 February 1996, Official Report, column 483.

  Duchy Agricultural College
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the written confirmation relating to the Duchy agricultural college, Stock Climsland application, SWP/2005/27/135, for European regional development funding; and if he will make a statement. [37250]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: I expect the Government office for the south west to be in a position to issue a decision very shortly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Administrative Grade Personnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of administrative grade personnel in each Government Department employed(a) before and (b) after planned completion of the de-layering scheme. [36699]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of staff in unified grades 1 to 7 fell from 17,500 on 1 April 1994 to 14,900 on 1 April 1996. Departmental senior management reviews are still being implemented.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress of the sale of HMSO. [37872]

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the first phase of analysis of the bids for HMSO, I have invited three of the shortlisted bidders to continue in the competition. These are,an independent consortium backed by Mercury Asset Management, 3i and Capita;
  National Publishing Group, a consortium led by Electra Fleming; and
  Westminster Information Systems led by NatWest Ventures.

  It is the Government's intention, subject to meeting the safeguards required by Parliament, to identify one of these three as preferred bidder by early August and to complete the sale as planned during the summer when an order will be introduced under section 6 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, as amended, to wind up the HMSO trading fund.

  Security Classifications
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his Department's definitions of the security classifications "secret", "confidential", "restricted" and "unclassified". [37614]

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the review of protective security, the classification system for identifying sensitive official information or material was replaced on 4 April 1994 by the protective marking system, as announced by
  435
  my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 March 1994, Official Report, columns 259–60. The protective marking system contains four protective markings, the definitions of which are as follows:
  Top secret
  The compromise of this information or material would be likely: to threaten directly the internal stability of the UK or friendly countries; to lead directly to widespread loss of life; to cause exceptionally grave damage to the effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or to the continuing effectiveness of extremely valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause exceptionally grave damage to relations with friendly Governments; to cause severe long-term damage to the UK economy.
  Secret
  The compromise of this information or material would be likely: to raise international tension; to damage seriously relations with friendly Governments; to threaten life directly, or seriously prejudice public order, or individual security or liberty; to cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause substantial material damage to national finances or economic and commercial interests.
  Confidential
  The compromise of this information or material would be likely: materially to damage diplomatic relations (i.e. cause formal protest or other sanction); to prejudice individual security or liberty; to cause damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations; to work substantially against national finances or economic and commercial interests; substantially to undermine the financial viability of major organisations; to impede the investigation or facilitate the commission of serious crime; to impede seriously the development or operation of major government policies; to shut down or otherwise substantially disrupt significant national operations.
  Restricted
  The compromise of this information or material would be likely: to affect diplomatic relations adversely; to cause substantial distress to individuals; to make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces; to cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to or facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies; to prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime; to breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties; to impede the effective development or operation of government policies; to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information; to disadvantage Government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; to undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.

  The term "unclassified" was not formally a classification but could be used to indicate positively that information or material did not carry a classification. Under the current arrangements, the corresponding term is "No Protective Marking".

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what upgrades are planned on the west coast main line. [36825]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is currently assessing the likely costs and feasibilities for a wide variety of options for upgrading the west coast main line. These include increasing the line speed over all or part of the route and 436
  the introduction of new rolling stock, possibly utilising tilt technology. Advanced signalling systems are also being considered.

  Once this assessment work has been completed a decision will be made on the specification for any upgrade project.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the maximum speed for trains on the west coast main line by the year 2000. [36826]

  Mr. Watts
  Any work undertaken to upgrade the west coast main line will not have been completed by the year 2000. The maximum line speed will therefore be 110mph, as it is now.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what year, on current projections, a rail journey will take(a) two hours between London and Manchester, (b) four hours between London and Glasgow and (c) one hour and forty-five minutes between London and Crewe. [36828]

  Mr. Watts
  No such projections have been made by my right hon. Friend.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to issue tender documents in respect of the upgrading of the west coast main line. [36824]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director has invited and received, on 12 July, applications to pre-qualify for the InterCity west coast franchise. He will issue invitations to tender, including any relevant proposals for taking forward the upgrade of the west coast main line, in due course.

  Motorways (Interval Chevrons)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, in respect of the study commissioned by his Department into the use of interval chevrons on motorways and receipt in 1995 of project report 118 of the Transport Research Laboratory, when Ministers were informed of the results and recommendations of its authors, which recommendations he accepts, what further studies have been carried out, with what results, what steps have been taken to publicise the findings and what action he has taken to authorise their (i) adoption and (ii) additional extensive trials. [37076]

  Mr. Norris
  TRL report PR118 described the results of trials at two particular sites, and indicated that in certain conditions chevrons could bring benefits. This was further reported in the October 1995 edition of "Traffic Engineering and Control". Opportunity for further trials will depend on the suitability of site conditions. Chevrons would normally have to be installed in tandem with other maintenance operations to avoid unnecessary disruption to traffic. The Highways Agency is in the process of identifying possible monitoring sites.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been carried out by the Transport
  437
  Research Laboratory on the problem of cold-start emissions from catalytic converters; [37011]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the results of research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory on the performance of catalytic converters in service in reducing harmful vehicle emissions. [37012]

  Mr. Norris
  The research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory has confirmed that three-way catalytic converters reduce harmful emissions by around 80 per cent. However, this research has also shown that the emissions occurring during the first three minutes after the car is started from cold, approach those of cars which are not equipped with catalysts.

  Tighter standards applicable from 1 January 1997 will significantly improve catalyst warm-up times to reduce cold start emissions. Even tighter standards, now being proposed by the European Commission for 2000, coupled with changes to the certification test cycle, will encourage further improvements.

  Transport and Works Act
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the target time scale for dealing with applications under the Transport and Works Act 1992 following receipt of the inspector's report; and what current delays there are in processing such applications. [37003]

  Mr. Norris
  In cases where a public inquiry is held, the target time scale is to issue the decision letter not later than six months from the receipt of the inspector's report. This time scale may be exceeded because of pressure of other work, though the staffing of the processing unit is kept under review with the target in mind, or because of the difficulty or complexity of a particular case.

  Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transport System
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlie the delay in respect of his decision on the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transport System) (Eccles Extension) Order. [37001]

  Mr. Norris
  I regret that, because of pressure of other work, the target time scale of six months from receipt of the inspector's report to the issue of the Secretary of State's decision letter has not been achieved in this case. We are dealing with the order application as quickly as practicable and hope to issue a decision letter within the next four or six weeks.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contractors and consultants to the Highways Agency have been kept waiting for over two months for their accounts to be settled; what interest penalties the agency is liable to pay; and what payments have been made to date. [36898]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  438
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about payments to contractors and consultants.
  Interests payments of £28,000 were made to eleven contractors and consultants in relation to invoices for new construction work received during 1995–96 where the contractual payment date was exceeded. All interest payments claimed have been paid in full. Information relating specifically to delays of over two months would only be available at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many redundancies have taken place in the Highways Agency in the last two years; how many more he estimates will take place in the next 12 months; and what factors underlay the redundancies. [36895]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how many redundancies have taken place in the Highways Agency in the last two years; how many more he estimates will take place in the next 12 months; and what factors underlay the redundancies.
  594 redundancies have taken place in the Highways Agency in the last two financial years. The bulk of these have come about as a consequence of the restructuring of the Highways Agency which was announced in March 1995, and a 20% efficiency gains exercise which was carried out concurrently. We anticipate further redundancies in this financial year mainly as a result of a further review, which commenced in November 1995, into the organisation and staffing needs of the Highways Agency in the light of reduced funding. The number will be determined when work on the implementation of the review's conclusions is completed.

  Cycling Policy
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations he consulted prior to his speech of 10 July concerning his policy for cycling; and what role he envisages for the National Cycling Forum additional to that already performed by the former departmental steering group in its development of national cycling strategy. [37343]

  Mr. Norris
  The steering group which developed the national cycling strategy comprised representative of the following:the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Government, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group, the Cyclists' Touring Club, the Department of the Environment, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Department of Health, the Department of Transport, the London Cycling Campaign, the Scottish Office, Transport 2000, and the Welsh Office.

  The steering group sought a wide input of views and contributions to the strategy. Annex 1 of the national cycling strategy lists 65 individuals and organisations who assisted in some way, in addition to the 78 people involved directly in formal steering groups and working groups. Copies of the strategy have been placed in the Library, and I am sending one to my hon. Friend.

  A statement explaining the purpose, tasks, and outputs of the National Cycling Forum is contained in section 2.5.4 of the strategy.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 546, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37532]

  Mr. Norris
  The examination of approximately 20,000 files dating back to 1989–90.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 727, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37533]

  Mr. Norris
  The examination of approximately 28,000 files dating back to 1987–88.

  Bus Lane Enforcement
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report on the trials of camera-based bus lane enforcement in London. [37441]

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director for London, who is managing this project, is preparing a report to be published in September this year. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the preferred bidder procedure as set out in the Treasury's guidelines will be adopted for the new 440
  Scottish air traffic control centre; when he expects to announce the name of the preferred bidder; and if he will make a statement. [37342]

  Mr. Norris
  The invitation to participate issued by the Civil Aviation Authority for the Scottish air traffic control centre involves a procedure which is consistent with the Treasury's private finance initiative guidelines. National Air Traffic Services is concerned to ensure that the procedure will avoid unnecessary bidding costs and it will seek to declare a preferred bidder as soon as it is appropriate and prudent to do so. The validity of current offers for this requirement expire on 9 February 1997.

  Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance Rail Link
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a progress report on his Department's application to the European Commission for financial assistance with the funding of a feasibility study for the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance rail link under the provisions of the trans-European network programme; and if he will make a statement. [37254]

  Mr. Watts
  The TENS finance committee, which is composed of representatives of member states and determines the allocation of funds to projects, is to meet on 25 July. The committee will consider on the basis of member states' bids, which for the United Kingdom includes the feasibility study for the Bristol-Penzance-Plymouth rail link, how the funds available in 1996 should be allocated. We will be pressing the merits of the UK bid at the meeting. I refer my hon. Friend also to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on 8 July,Official Report, column 78–79.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Referendums
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was(a) the date and (b) the outcome of the latest referendum held in each EU member state on matters relating to the EU. [35828]

  Mr. David Davis
  The dates and outcome of the latest referenda held in European Union member states on matters relating to the EU are as follows.

  Outcome

  Date

  Subject

  For Percentage

  Against Percentage

  Austria

  June 1994

  EU Accession

  66.6

  33.4

  Belgium

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  May 1993

  Treaty on European Union

  56.7

  43.3

  Germany

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  France

  September 1992

  Treaty on European Union

  51.01

  48.99

  Ireland

  June 1992

  Treaty on European Union

  69.05

  30.95

  Italy

  June 1989

  European Parliament power to amend the Treaties

  88

  12

  Luxembourg

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  Never

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  October 1994

  EU Accession

  56.9

  43.1

  Sweden

  November 1994

  EU Accession

  52

  48

  Prince Michael of Kent
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits involving costs to public funds were made abroad in 1995–96 by Prince Michael of Kent; on what dates; at what cost; and which visits were made by use of the Royal squadron. [35965]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Prince Michael did not undertake any official visits during this period.

  Bosnia
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the Amnesty International report on Bosnia Herzegovina, "Bury my Brother's Bones", a copy of which has been sent to him. [37435]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We believe that all those who have committed war crimes should be brought to justice, that the missing should be traced, mass graves exhumed 442
  and the bodily remains identified and returned to the next of kin for decent burial. The Government fully support the work of the experts group on exhumations and missing persons and the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  Last year we donated £4 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to help fund its tracing work in former Yugoslavia. We recently donated vehicles to help the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's exhumations currently taking place around Srebrenica.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 107, when he expects to come to a conclusion on the International Court of Justice's opinion on nuclear weapons; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the opinion and the Government's response to it. [37434]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July in respect of the use of nuclear weapons. [37353]

  Mr. David Davis
  The court's advisory opinion is long and complex and we are studying it. But we do not believe that it gives rise to any new factors affecting the fundamentals of United Kingdom and NATO defence policy, including the continuing importance of nuclear deterrence in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

  A copy of the court's opinion has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of Rockall within the UN law of the sea convention 1982; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to sign the convention. [36950]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Rockall is an island within the meaning of article 121(1) of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and has a territorial sea of 12 miles. Measuring British fishing limits from Rockall is believed to be inconsistent with the provision in article 121(3) of UNCLOS that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone.

  The Government announced on 20 July 1994 that the United Kingdom would accede to the convention in due course. Timing of the UK's accession remains under review. Parliament will be informed as soon as the Government have taken a decision.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Slave Trade
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage
  443
  co-operation between the police and social services to help the victims of the trafficking in human beings. [36564]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. This is an operational matter for chief officers of police and social services.

  Toughened Safety Glassware
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to issue guidance to magistrates that the use of toughened safety glassware be made a condition of pub and club licences. [36700]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so. Licensing authorities already have wide powers under both the liquor and entertainment licensing laws to require the use of toughened glass or synthetic drinking vessels on particular occasions or in particular premises if they consider the circumstances justify them doing so.

  Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) cautions and (b) prosecutions have been made under regulation 97 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. [36849]

  Mr. Maclean
  Written warnings and prosecutions for offences under regulation 97 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 cannot be separately identified from other offences of causing noise by motor vehicles in the statistics collected centrally.

  In England and Wales during 1994, the latest year for which statistics are available, there were 560 written warnings issued for noise offences of all types connected with motor vehicles, and 7,823 court proceedings taken. In addition, 735 fixed penalty notices were issued for noise offences during 1994.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of British amusement arcade operators are not members of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association; and what restrictions he proposes to apply to access in these venues. [37065]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The British Amusements Catering Trades Association estimates that 20 per cent. of British amusement arcade operators are not members of the association.

  The same legal restrictions apply to all amusement arcades irrespective of BACTA membership. The Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order 1996, which came into force on 20 June, imposed an age limit of 18 on access to arcades or designated areas within them which have all-cash amusement-with-prizes machines paying up to £10.

  We have no plans to restrict access to arcades which have no all-cash machines.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans his Department has to introduce a statutory age restriction with regard to the 444
  playing of amusement—with—prizes machines; and how this will be enforced; [37063]

  (2) what plans he has in respect of persons of any age having unlimited access to machines with cash prizes of less than £10. [37064]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order 1996 came into force on 20 June. Under this, local authorities can permit amusement-with-prizes machines making all-cash payments up to £10 in arcades or designated parts of arcades which exclude people under age 18. Local authorities also enforce the provisions.

  Otherwise, these machines are allowed only in licensed betting offices and casinos, which have a statutory prohibition on access by people under 18, and in licensed bingo clubs and liquor licensed premises which are essentially adult environments. The police enforce the relevant age restrictions.

  We have no plans for a statutory age limit for premises with traditional AWP machines paying up to £4 in cash and £8 in tokens, but local authorities can ban AWP machines from premises such as cafes and leisure centres.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when those recommendations outlined in the recently published Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report, "Drug Misusers and the Prison System-An Integrated Approach" which are to be implemented will come into effect; [37051]

  (2) if he will list the reasons why those recommendations outlined in the recently published Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report, "Drug Misusers and the Prison System-An Integrated Approach" which are not to be implemented, have been rejected; [37052]

  (3) which of the recommendations outlined in the recently published Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report, "Drug Misusers and the Prison System-An Integrated Approach" are to be implemented. [37050]

  Miss Widdecombe
  This report, which we welcome, was published on 13 June. Its 51 recommendations are still being studied. We hope to be able to respond to them by the autumn.

  Gambling
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the draft deregulation orders concerning gambling will be laid before the House. [37060]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I hope shortly to lay a draft deregulation order extending betting permits and licences from one to three years.

  We are considering the responses to the consultation paper on casinos and bingo clubs which we issued on 27 February. Subject to the outcome, we aim to bring forward a draft deregulation order to implement some of the proposals when the House returns.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serious assaults on staff have occurred in Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall since 1 June; and what is the total number of assaults on staff that have occurred at the prison since 14 December 1994. [37000]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the level of assaults at Buckley Hall prison.
  Since the 1 June 1996 there have been two serious assaults on staff. There have been a total of 30 assaults on staff since 14 December 1994.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a copy of the board of visitors' annual report on Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall for the year ending 31 December 1995 will be placed in the Library. [36780]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Boards of visitors' annual reports to the Home Secretary are not public documents. However, boards are permitted, if they wish, to publish their annual reports one month after presenting the report to Ministers. The board of visitors at Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall decided at its June monthly meeting to publish its 1995 report and a copy will therefore be placed in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which trade union is recognised by Group 4 at Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall; and what issues the company is prepared to consult and negotiate with the trade union. [37113]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking which trade union is recognised by Group 4 at Buckley Hall prison and what issues the company is prepared to consult and negotiate with the trade union.
  Group 4 has a single union agreement with Apex, a division of the GMB. To quote from the agreement between the union and the company, the general introduction, section D article 1 reads "The company and the union share a common commitment to work jointly together for the prosperity of both the company and its employees, and agree jointly to work towards the adoption of policies on all issues affecting the employment of works which are equitable, safe and fair". Negotiable issues generally encompass pay and conditions of service.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the current number and (b) the percentage of the current prison population at HMP
  446
  Buckley Hall who have been imprisoned for (i) rape, (ii) murder, (iii) armed robbery, (iv) manslaughter and (v) arson. [37057]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners serving sentences for rape, murder, armed robbery, manslaughter and arson at Buckley Hall Prison.
  On 10 July 1996 there were 340 prisoners at Buckley Hall, of these three have been convicted of rape, none were serving sentences for murder, 14 were serving sentences for robbery with possession of a firearm, five were sentenced on a charge of manslaughter and 11 for arson.
  Convictions for rape accounted for 0.8 per cent. Those for robbery with possession of a firearm were 4.1 per cent, sentences of manslaughter were 1.5 per cent and arson was 3.2 per cent.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the full pay scales for staff employed at Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall, showing the number of employees currently employed at each grade. [37112]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for pay scales currently used at Buckley Hall prison.
  Since Buckley Hall is a privately managed prison this information is commercially confidential.

  Banned Drugs
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 107, if he has received the result of the consideration by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on whether gamma hydroxy butyrate should be added to the list of banned drugs. [37124]

  Mr. Sackville
  This matter is due to be considered by the advisory council at its next meeting, in November.

  Criminal Records (Computerisation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal records have been transferred from the manual collection on to computer; what is the estimated cost of the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [37152]

  Mr. Maclean
  About 286,000 records have been entered on to the Phoenix database on the police national computer. Other records which have been keyed await final processing or quality assurance.

  The cost of the main keying contract is £8.6 million, excluding value added tax, which is reclaimable. This is in addition to the cost of work undertaken by the national identification service staff and the police service.

  Dr. Bayo Omoyiole
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on Dr. Bayo Omoyiole who is awaiting his appeal for asylum; and if he will make a statement; [37157]

  (2) what is the date of the appeal of Dr. Bayo Omoyiole against the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse his claim for asylum; and if he will make a statement. [37156]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Victims of Terrorism
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department provides to those who have been the victims of terrorist incidents; and if he will make a statement. [37056]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: The criminal injuries compensation scheme enables compensation to be paid to those injured or killed by terrorist incidents in England, Wales and Scotland. The scheme is funded by my Department with a contribution from the Scottish Office. In such incidents, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority takes steps to ensure through those directly involved with the victims—usually the police, but often Victim Support, which my Department also funds—that potential applicants for compensation are made aware of the scheme and how to apply.

  Small Firms (Compliance Costs)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with and with how many(a) small firms and (b) small firms organisations about the compliance costs of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; if a small business litmus test was completed on the bill; and what conclusions his Department came to regarding the compliance costs to small firms of the Bill. [36658]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: We invited views on the estimates set out in the compliance cost assessment published last November from organisations representing small and large firms. Of the nine organisations representing small firms to which CCA was sent none raised concerns about the likely compliance costs or about the estimates provided in the CCA.

  A preliminary assessment of the effect of the provision on smaller firms was provided in the CCA. Discussions with a number of small firms are currently nearing completion. Provisional conclusions suggest that the compliance costs for the great majority of small firms will be minimal.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  CAFOD

  1,300

  1,500

  1,810

  1,864

  1,920

  Christian Aid

  2,210

  2,410

  2,830

  2,915

  3,003

  Oxfam

  4,100

  4,300

  5,000

  5,150

  5,304

  SCF

  3,510

  3,710

  4,320

  4,450

  4,583

  WWF

  1,510

  1,710

  2,040

  2,100

  2,164

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of magistrates courts in Lancashire. [37406]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lancashire magistrates courts committee will continue to be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in Lancashire for the foreseeable future.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what he estimates to be the cost in the most recent year for which figures are available of legal aid in juvenile cases which would not attract custodial sentences and(a) where the defendant pleads guilty or (b) where there is no dispute over the facts in the case. [37697]

  Mr. Streeter
  Legal aid is rarely granted in cases where there is no risk of a custodial sentence; any costs to the legal aid fund are, therefore, likely to be small. In 1995– 96, total payments from the legal aid fund in respect of juvenile cases in the youth courts where guilty pleas were entered amounted to £4.3 million gross. It is not possible to give equivalent figures for the Crown Court since the information is not readily available. Nor is it possible to estimate the cost to legal aid of those cases where there was no dispute over the facts of the case, as the information is not recorded centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and which national non-governmental organisations running development programmes overseas qualify for annual block grants; how much each NGO received for each financial year from 1992–93 to 1996–97; what are the criteria for qualifying for block grants; and if he will make a statement. [37347]

  Mr. Hanley
  Five United Kingdom non-governmental organisations currently receive annual block grants from the joint funding scheme of the Overseas Development Administration for their development work overseas. The five are CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. Under the block grant arrangements, ODA provides up to 50 per cent. of the cost of individual development projects. The grants provided to each of these organisations in the financial years from 1992–93 to 1996–97 are set out in the table.
  449
  The ODA's fundamental expenditure review, completed in 1995, recommended that the block grant arrangements should be extended to NGOs which had, in each of the preceding three financial years, received £750,000 or more through the joint funding scheme for its development projects. The award of any new block grant would be subject to the NGO in question satisfying an audit by ODA of its financial and technical management procedures.

  Human Reproduction (Research Funding)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the allocation of his Department's funding for(a) the International Planned Parenthood Federation, (b) the UN Population Fund and (c) the World Health Organisation special programmes of research, development and research training in human reproduction for the financial year 1996–97. [37349]

  Mr. Hanley
  The central allocations for the 1996–97 financial year are:

  Title of project

  Financial years where expenditure has taken place to date

  Country

  Planned project duration in years (where known)

  Population concern

  Promotion of maternal child health

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Bangladesh

  3

  Comprehensive family planning

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  Bangladesh

  3

  Family planning services

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Dominica

  3

  Training of health assistants

  1993–94

  Ethiopia

  1

  Jimma project

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Ethiopia

  3

  Yirgalem project

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Ethiopia

  5

  Community based distribution through Rural Women Development agency

  1995–96

  Ethiopia

  3

  Youth to youth information

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  The Gambia

  3

  Post Partum family planning services

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  The Gambia

  3

  Women's development

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  India

  5

  Mobile education and service unit

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  India

  5

  Family planning through community institutions

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Pakistan

  3

  Training for women development workers

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Pakistan

  3

  Community leadership training

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Pakistan

  3

  Kohat family planning and mother and child health project

  1995–96

  Pakistan

  3

  Volunteer community based family planning

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Tanzania

  5

  Community based family planning

  1995–96

  Tanzania

  4

  Marie Stopes International

  Employment based family planning programme—Chittagong

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Bangladesh

  4

  Marie Stopes Consultancy

  1994–95

  Egypt, Arab Republic

  Condom social marketing and family planning

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Ethiopia

  3

  Brass Tacks family planning programme

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  India

  4

  Workplace family planning and preventative health care—employees and dependants

  1993–94

  India

  4

  Contraceptive social marketing

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  India

  3

  Reproductive health education

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  India

  5

  National youth service

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Kenya

  9

  Reproductive health project

  1994–95 to 1996–97

  Malawi

  5

  Family planning consultancy

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Malawi

  1

  Man-to-man male-orientated child spacing education

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Malawi

  1

  Child spacing—women's preventive health for refugees

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Malawi

  4

  Family planning

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  Mexico

  3

  Family planning and preventive health care

  1993–94 to 1996–97

  Nepal

  4

  Workplace preventive health and family planning

  1993–94

  Nicaragua

  4

  Accessible family planning and reproductive health services

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  Nicaragua

  3

  Organisational strengthening of women's health programmes

  1995–96

  Nicaragua

  2

  Reproductive health support

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  Nigeria

  450

  (a) International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)—£6.0 million;

  (b) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)—£7.5 million and

  (c) World Health Organisation special programme of research, development and research training in human reproduction (WHO/HRP)—£1.5 million. Additional funding may be allocated during the year for multilateral, bilateral or other specific projects.

  Health and Family Planning
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which reproductive health and family planning projects under the aegis of(a) Population Concern, (b) Marie Stopes International and (c) International Family Health have been funded for each financial year since 1993–94; in which countries these projects are based; and what is their funding and duration. [37348]

  Mr. Hanley
  The table lists ODA supported non-governmental organisation—Population Concern, Marie Stopes International and International Family Health—projects with a reproductive health component.

  Tied Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have received the most tied aid as a proportion of bilateral official development assistance over the last three years. [56653]

  Mr. Hanley
  Statistics on the tying status of aid relate to commitments and not expenditure. The three countries with the highest commitments of financial tied aid in 1993 and 1994 are as follows:

  Country

  Amount of tied financial aid commitment £ million

  1993

  India

  83

  Turkey

  23

  Uganda

  16

  1994

  Uganda

  21

  Tanzania

  18.5

  India

  16.5

  Data for 1992 and earlier are not available on a country basis, nor is information on technical co-operation expenditure.

TREASURY

  Financial Incentives (Environmental Practice)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to introduce financial incentives for sustainable environmental practice by businesses; and if he will make a statement. [34746]

  Mr. Jack
  Economic instruments, including tax measures, are pursued where they are justified and administratively feasible. Proposals for financial incentives for sustainable environmental practice by businesses are examined on a case-by-case basis. The introduction of the landfill tax starting in October is a clear demonstration of that.

  "Europe's Finances"
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that, in future editions of "Europe's Finances", a statement of Europe's unfunded pension liabilities, is included together with a statement as to the possible future impact of such liabilities on the United Kingdom economy. [36355]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No, since the annual White Paper deals solely with European Community finances and the Community budget has no liability for pension costs other than in respect of the employees of the Community institutions.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the success of the private finance initiative. [36836]
  452
  Mr. Jack
  I announced on 3 April that £4.8 billion of private finance deals had been agreed in the financial year 1995–96, with £300 million of deals at preferred bidder stage and £330 million due to be agreed. The current total of agreed private finance deals has now risen to £5.5 billion, including projects such as the development of the Department of Social Security's Newcastle estate at Longbenton, two prison projects at Bridgend and Fazakerley and benefits payments automation through the Post Office. These figures indicate that the Government are well on the way to reaching their target of agreeing £14 billion of deals by the end of 1998–99.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much private capital was invested through the PFI in public projects in each financial year up to 1995–96; and what are his current forecasts for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [36590]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated levels of private sector capital spending in public projects via the private finance initiative were, in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, £0.3 billion, £0.3 billion and £0.6 billion respectively. The projections for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 are £1.9 billion, £2.6 billion and £2.8 billion respectively. Further details about the private finance initiative and capital spending can be found in tables 6.4 and 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1996–97, published on 28 November 1995.

  Exchange and Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the changes in(a) real exchange rates relative to those of other EU countries and (b) real interest rates in each quarter since the first quarter of 1993. [37489]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Data on real effective exchange rates for EU countries can be found in Main Economic Indicators, which is published monthly by the OECD. In the June 1996 edition, the real exchange rate data are shown in table 30. Data on short-term nominal interest rates and inflation in the UK can be found in Economic Trends.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trends in the balance of trade in goods in(a) the last three months and (b) the equivalent period in 1995. [37485]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The deficit on trade in goods was erratically low early last year. Despite fluctuations, there has been no obvious trend in the deficit over the past five years. In 1994 and 1995 the deficit on trade in goods was more than offset by surpluses on trade in services and overseas investment income.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the United Kingdom balance of trade in goods for each year since 1992; and what factors underline this trend. [37490]

  Mrs. Knight
  In 1993, the trade deficit on goods widened by £0.4 billion compared with 1992. It then narrowed by £2.6 billion in 1994 and widened by £0.8 billion in 1995. In 1995, the trade deficit on goods was £1.5 billion less than it was in 1992. Underpinning
  453
  this improvement between 1992 and 1995, the volume of exported goods has increased by 24 per cent. while the volume of imported goods was increased by 15 per cent.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37229]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury aims to release all its major publications on the Internet either at the same time as the hard copy publication or as soon as possible thereafter. Simultaneous release is not always possible for some material because of technical or logistical considerations.

  Publications which we aim to release at the same time as the hard copy include: the documentation for the Chancellor's Budget; the summer economic forecast; the minutes of the Chancellor's monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England; news releases, such as announcements of interest rate changes; certain consultation papers; and keynote speeches.

  Migration
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total numbers of people(a) immigrating to the United Kingdom and (b) emigrating from the United Kingdom, in the last five years for which figures are available. [37429]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is shown in the table.

  Migration estimates for the United Kingdom (Thousands of migrants)

  Years

  Inflow to UK

  Outflow from UK

  1990

  340.2

  252.0

  1991

  337.0

  263.7

  1992

  286.6

  251.5

  1993

  272.2

  236.8

  1994

  321.4

  213.0

  The estimates in the table are derived from data on migration intentions obtained from the international passenger survey, from information on migration to and from the Irish Republic obtained from the national health service central register and the Irish labour force survey, and from data on short-term visitors who were granted extension of stay obtained from the Home Office.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current perinatal mortality rate broken down by mother's place of birth. [37134]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The latest available information is shown in the table.
  454

  Perinatal mortality rate by mother's country of birth, England and Wales 1994

  Country of birth

  Perinatal rate1

  All

  8.9

  United Kingdom

  8.6

  Irish Republic

  11.2

  Rest of European Union

  8.3

  Australia, Canada, New Zealand

  6.4

  New Commonwealth including:

  12.6

  Bangladesh

  10.8

  India

  9.3

  Pakistan

  15.0

  East Africa

  10.9

  Caribbean

  17.4

  Other2

  9.4

  1 Perinatal deaths per 1,000 live and stillbirths.2 Includes case where no country of birth was stated.

  Mr. F. G. Higgins
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will refund the VAT owed, together with interest, to Mr. F. G. Higgins of Lyndhurst, 50 Borough road, Paignton; and what factors have led to the delay. [36955]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: Customs and Excise are not aware of VAT owed to Mr. Higgins. In fact, a long-outstanding debt to Customs and Excise, based on VAT returns completed by Mr. Higgins, is currently being recovered through the courts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Hawk aircraft have been exported to Indonesia so far this year. [35426]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Eight.

  Business Grants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total value of grants awarded by his Department to businesses in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire, for each of the last five years. [36453]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following is the information:

  Year

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cheshire

  1991–92

  90,109

  7,551,997

  1992–93

  47,320

  6,059,063

  1993–94

  90,000

  4,777,740

  1994–95

  105,000

  10,503,421

  1995–96

  57,676

  3,305,498

  Scottish Gas
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South may expect a reply to his letter of 24 April to the Director General of Gas Supply concerning complaints from
  455
  constituents about the delays and difficulties they are encountering in contacting the telephone inquiry lines for Scottish Gas; and what factors have led to the delay so far in replying. [36569]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Gas Supply is independent of my Department. These issues should be addressed to her.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies which participated in trade missions supported by his Department to Indonesia on 19 February, 15 April and 24 June indicating the nature of the products which they were promoting, the names of the company personnel who attended and the names and designation of staff from his and other Government Departments who attended the missions. [36764]

  Mr. Nelson
  The following is the information:

  Participants in mission of 19 February

  Personnel who attended

  Product

  Mitchell Cotts Chemicals Ltd.

  Mr. S. J. Wilson

  Agrochemical and pharmaceutical

  HNE Nesbit Evans

  Mr. G. Gladwin

  Medical equipment

  Brandon Medical Ltd.

  Mr. G. Hall

  Surgical lighting

  Associated Architects and Engineers Ltd.

  Mr. I. Scott

  Architects and engineers

  Radyne Ltd.

  Mr. A. Hine

  Process heating

  Waldon Precision Aparatus Ltd.

  Mr. P. Watson

  Analytical instruments

  Overseas Devpt. (Health) Education Training Unit

  Mr. H. Brewer

  Training and education

  Dental Manufacturing Engineering

  Mr. D. Greham

  Dental turbines and chemicals

  Leeds and Bradford Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Mr. M. Sewell

  1—

  1No government officials participated in the mission.

  Participants in mission of 15 April

  Personnel who attended

  Product

  Intek Training Ltd.

  Mr. J. Wright

  Traing materials and consultancy

  Millingford International Ltd.

  Mr. R. Farrow

  Pumps

  Mott MacDonald Ltd.

  Mr. A. Shaukat

  Engineering consultancy

  Northern Electric plc

  Mr. T. Mair

  Technical consultancy and software

  Reyrolle Ltd.—Protection

  Mr. P. Townes

  Electrical protections and Reyrolle systems for use on power system networks

  Royston Engineering

  Mr. S. Goodchild

  Marine and industrial engines

  Teknek Electronics Ltd.

  Mr. K. Munro

  Cleaning and static eliminating solutions for delicate and rigid high value substrates e.g. CDs, printed circuit boards, medical packages

  Vokes Ltd.

  Mr. G. Martin

  Air and liquid filtration technology

  Railway Industry Association

  Mr. D. Gillan

  Tade Association

  TMB International Ltd.

  Mr. P. Wootton

  Engineering consultancy for rail industry

  Training Unit
  456

  Participants in mission of 15 April

  Personnel who attended

  Product

  ABB Daimler Benz Transportation

  Mr. I. McCullough

  Railway Signals and (Signal) Ltd. Communications systems

  Adtranz UK Ltd.

  Mr. A. Dare

  Railway rolling stock

  Balfour Beatty Railway Engineering

  Mr. M. Newman

  Railway contractors

  Davy British Rail International

  Mr. P. Green

  Railway infrastructure projects

  GEC Marconi S31 Ltd., Simulation Ltd.

  Mr. G Boon

  Simulation products for and Training the railway indsutry and computer based training

  Hygate Transmissions Ltd.

  Mr. N. Crossley

  Railtraction gearboxes and gear couplings for mass transit systems

  Rotabroch Ltd.

  Mr. P. Dorsett

  Rail drilling and hle cutters

  Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners Ltd.

  Mr. T King

  Railway consultancy

  Stone UK Ltd.

  Mr. M. Falshaw

  Air conditioning for railway vehicles

  Tarmac Construction

  Mr. T Ogilvie

  Railway construciton

  Thorn Transit Systms Int. Ltd.

  Mr. S. Wright

  Automatic fare colelcitons systems

  Westinghouse Brakes Ltd.

  Mr. C. Loader

  Railway brake equipment

  Westinghouse Signals Ltd.

  Mr. D. Hannah

  Railway signals

  Northern Development Company

  Mr. J. Marks

  Regional develoment agency

  Department of Trade and Industry Projects Exports Promotions Directorate

  Mr. G. Thomas

  Higher Executive Officer

  Participants in mission of 24 June

  Personnel who attended

  Product

  BCB International Ltd.

  Mr. A. Howell

  Marine and personal safety equipment

  Comet Enterprises (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. R. Molavi

  Telecommunications technology

  Denlab International (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. Graham Ellis

  Coffee plantation and food processing equipment

  F. Bode and Son Ltd.

  Mr. C. Bode

  Welding positioning equipment

  Joanne Lamey Consultant

  Mrs. J. Lamey

  Research consultant

  Landham Produce

  Mr. W. Bryant

  Food produce

  Panache Lingerie Ltd.

  Mr. A. Power Mr. J. Power

  Lingerie

  Park Tonks Ltd.

  Mr. W. Park Tonks

  Animal feeds and proteins

  Prisma Market Analysts Ltd.

  Mr. D. Booth

  Foreign exchange market technical analysis

  Staffordshire Tableware Ltd.

  Mr. D. Lawton Mr. R. Quipp

  Tableware

  Strachan Henshaw Machinery Ltd.

  Mr. R. Harders

  Printing equipment

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Ms L. Bishop-Clark

  —

  No officials accompanied this mission.

  Missile Exports
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which Ministers approved the renewal in 1990 of export licences, using the form F680 process, to Ferranti/ISC in respect of precision guided missiles; [36607]
  457
  (2) which Ministers approved the issue in 1986 of export licences, using the form F680 process, to Ferranti/ISC in respect of precision guided missiles; [36609]

  (3) if Defence ministers were informed when approving an export licence for ISC/Ferranti to supply precision guided missiles to the United Arab Emirates that the missiles were capable of conversion to nuclear use; [36851]

  (4) which Ministers approved the renewal in 1988 of export licences, using the form F680 process, to Ferranti/ISC in respect of precision guided missiles; [36608]

  (5) if restrictions were placed on the licence to ISC/Ferranti to export precision guided missiles to the United Arab Emirates following consultation between his Department and the Government of the United States of America. [36817]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To supply the information requested requires more detailed historical research. I shall write to the hon. Member when investigations are completed.

  Foreign Companies (Investment)
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the levels of investment made by British companies in purchasing foreign companies in each of the last four years. [37080]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on direct investment overseas by United Kingdom companies and public corporations is published by the Office for National Statistics in "The Pink Book, United Kingdom Balance of Payments", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of inward investment into(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Yorkshire for each of the last three years; if he will list the figures by country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [36885]

  Mr. Eggar
  Data on the value of inward direct investment into the United Kingdom as a whole, broken down by the country of origin, are regularly published by the Office for National Statistics in "Business Monitor MA4, Overseas Direct Investment" (table 2.4), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These figures are not collected on a county basis.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent assessment he has made of the trend in wages in those industries previously covered by the wages councils. [36891]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 24 April 1996,Official Report, column 180.

  Samsung
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public funds were made available to Samsung for its investment in the north-east; and if he will make a statement. [37224]
  458
  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department offered regional selective assistance grant and loans totalling £58 million against a proposed investment of £450 million by the company. The assistance will be paid over the next 10 years as the various elements of the Samsung investment proceed and jobs are created. In addition a number of other agencies are providing support for infrastructure development, job creation and training. Some of this support will not be in the form of grant aid to Samsung but will fall within the current and future work programmes of the agencies concerned.

  Insolvency (Reviewers of Complaints)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by location each of the reviewers of complaints appointed by each of the insolvency regulators, indicating who is responsible for(a) appointing, (b) dismissing and (c) retiring them and on what basis; and what remuneration each reviewer receives. [37334]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales— the current reviewer of complaints for the institute is Mr. A. C. Surtees, P.O. Box 51, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 5TA. The reviewer of complaints is appointed by the Council of the institute for a period of not less than three years and his appointment is renewable. The terms of his appointment are a matter for the institute.
  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants—the Association appoint a lay observer who is presently Mr. Simon Loveless of Potter Owtram and Peck, 42 West street, Haslemere, Surrey GU27 2AN. The lay observer is responsible for co-ordinating the reviewing of complaints. He is appointed by the council of the association. The terms of his appointment are a matter for the association.
  The Law Society—complaints against solicitor insolvency practitioners are dealt with in the first instance by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, an independent arm of the Law Society. A dissatisfied complainant may refer the matter to the legal services ombudsman who is presently Mr. Michael Barnes, 22 Oxford court, Oxford street, Manchester M2 3QW. The legal services ombudsman is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, normally for a period of three years. The remuneration for the office is a matter between the Lord Chancellor and the appointee.
  The Law Society of Scotland—a dissatisfied complainant may ask for the matter to be referred to the Scottish legal services ombudsman who is presently Mr. Garry S. Watson, 2 Greenside lane, Edinburgh, EH1 3AH. The Scottish legal services ombudsman is appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland after consultation with the Lord President of the Supreme Courts of Scotland. The appointment is for a period of three years. The remuneration for the office is a matter between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the appointee.

  The three remaining professional bodies are the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland and the Insolvency Practitioners Association. These bodies do not have an independent reviewer of complaints although in the case of the Scottish institute, a complaint about the institute itself may fall to be considered by a committee appointed from a panel of lay members of institute committees. This committee may report to the institute's council on its findings.
  459
  Each of the professional bodies have recognised the importance of independent input in regulatory matters and all have lay representation on their various regulatory and disciplinary committees.

  Auditing Requirements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for exempting small accountancy firms from the audit monitoring requirements introduced by the Companies Act 1989. [37382]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no such plans. I would, however, refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of the review of the monitoring arrangements of the recognised supervisory bodies for auditors, conducted by Professor Peter Moizer in 1994. The recommendations of the review, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, are being implemented by the bodies.

  Limited Liability Partnerships Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Government of Jersey in connection with the enactment of limited liability partnerships legislation. [37378]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have made no such representations.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to investigate the competition practices of major accountancy firms. [37379]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no such plans.

  Caparo Judgment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to reverse the Caparo judgment. [37380]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no such plans, but continue to keep the situation under review.

  Electrical Equipment (Plugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if all new electrical equipment designed to be connected to the mains sold in the United Kingdom is required to be fitted with plugs. [37191]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994, which came into force on 1 February 1996, introduced a legal requirement that most new and second hand domestic electrical appliances can be sold only if they have been pre-fitted with an approval standard United Kingdom plug.

  Industrial Development (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had, and with which bodies, on industrial development within the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [37196]

  Mr. Eggar
  DTI Ministers are frequently in contact with London-based organisations about a wide range of industrial issues.

  EU Working Tune Directive
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received about the European Union working time directive; how many of these came from British companies; and which have expressed concern about the effect of the directive on their profitability. [37432]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has received a wide range of representations about the working time directive. Many of these have been from employers or employer organisations concerned about the potential cost implications of the directive.

  Hubble Space Telescope
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 570, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make a statement on the progress of the formal discussions about Europe's role in the refurbishment of the Hubble space telescope, planned for 1999. [36645]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Representatives of the European Space Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration met on Thursday 27 June 1996 to discuss the ESA contribution to the Hubble space telescope refurbishment mission due in 1999. It was agreed that ESA will provide the solar array drive mechanism in return for 15 per cent. of observing time being allocated to European groups.

  Scott Report
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the appendices to Sir Richard Scott's report to be published. [37885]

  Mr. Lang
  They are to be published on 18 July as a two-disk CD-ROM set.

  Ice Cream (Inquiry)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the evidence submitted by Birds Eye Wall's to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry following the undertaking given to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on 17 April,Official Report, column 527. [37966]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Director General of Fair Trading, at the request of my predecessor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) carried out an investigation into whether, during an inquiry conducted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1993–94 into the supply of ice cream for immediate consumption in the United Kingdom, Birds Eye Wall's had supplied false or misleading information to the commission. The supply of such false or misleading information is an offence contrary to section 93B of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Having considered the director general's report, and departmental and other independent legal advice, against the criteria set out in the code for crown prosecutors, I have concluded that my Department should not take any further action in this matter.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what implications the shutdown of the reactors at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston have for electricity supply; and what is the estimated impact on the income stream of British Energy. [37603]

  Mr. Eggar
  The total generating capacity for the electricity markets in Great Britain was 67,620MW at 31 March 1996. Hinkley Point B has a generating capacity of l,270MW, 1.9 per cent. of the total and Hunterston B has a generating capacity of 1,195MW, 1.8 per cent. of the total. The impact on the income stream of British Energy is a commercial matter for the company.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what factors underlay the timing of the disclosure to the public of news of the shutdown of the AGR reactors at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston; [37601]

  (2) what implications the technical faults at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston have for the other five advanced gas-cooled reactors; [37602]

  (3) when he was first informed that there was a serious technical fault with the advanced gas-cooled reactors at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston; and if he will make a statement; [37599]

  (4) what recent advice he has received from the nuclear installations inspectorate about the advanced gas-cooled reactors at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston; and when he received its report. [37600]

  Mr. Eggar
  AGR technical issues are covered in the British Energy prospectus published on 26 June.

  A continuing programme of steam pipe inspections revealed a crack in a weld at Hinkley Point B which was made public by British Energy on 4 July. Following examination of the cracked weld Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear decided to shut down one reactor at each of Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B power stations, as a precautionary measure, on the evening of Tuesday 9 July. I was informed of the decision to shut down the reactors at about 9 am on Wednesday 10 July. My officials were in close touch with British Energy while the company established with their advisers that their financial position was not significantly affected. A press release was issued at 5.30 pm on 10 July after a high level group at the company had reviewed the evidence from the metallurgical examination and considered the possible financial implications.

  DTI has been kept fully informed of these developments by British Energy. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has confirmed that it is content with he licensees' actions.

  FalFab
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from hon. Members on behalf of FalFab LLC since 1994; and on what dates these were received. [35220]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: We have been unable to trace any record of representations from hon. Members on behalf of this company.
  462
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations were made by his Department to ensure that the estimated value of FalFab at the time of its application for regional selective assistance was correct; and if he will make a statement; [35248]

  (2) what verification was undertaken by his Department to ensure that sufficient capital was available to FalFab LLC to qualify for regional selective assistance from his Department; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of this verification; and if he proposes to recover any of the granted financial assistance. [35247]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: FalFab was a newly-created company set up as a joint venture between two other US-based companies. The Department's offer of grant contained preconditions in order to ensure that capital of at least £1 million had been injected into the company before grant was paid. Appropriate audited confirmation that these preconditions had been met was submitted at the time of FalFab's claim for the first instalment of grant.

  Although the company has laid off its workforce, discussions aimed at securing a viable future for the business are taking place and it would be premature for the Department to seek recovery.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards are in operation to protect his Department's position in relation to regional selective assistance grant and aid given to FalFab LLC if(a) the company ceases to trade and (b) the terms and conditions of the grant are not met; and if he will make a statement. [35246]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: If the company ceases to trade, or the terms and conditions of the offer are not met and there is no prospect of future viability, my Department will seek to recover grant from the company. The Department also has parent company guarantees to repay the grant if FalFab is not in a position to do so.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 457–58, if he will list (a) the number and (b) the date of applications to his Department's south-west regional office for regional selective assistance that can be readily identified as being prepared by company W since 1990; and how many applications have been received by his Department's south-west office since this date. [35266]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The Department has examined all the cases which have been considered by the South West industrial development board since 1990 and subsequently been the subject of a grant offer. Company W appears to have prepared 23 out of the 99 cases falling into this category. The application dates of these cases were:

  6 June and 29 October 1991;

  1 September 1992;

  5 January, 14 June, 8, 22 and 28 October and 2 December 1993;

  6, and 24 January, 18 April, 6 May, 15 June, 5 and 12 July and 24 November 1994;

  463

  6 February, 1 March and 1 and 2 November 1995;

  23 February and 15 March 1996.

  I can say with confidence that Mr. Harris was not present for any of the subsequent discussion on the applications submitted by this company.

  South West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 464, if he will state (a) the name of the relevant company, (b) the reason it was deemed sufficient for Mr. X to remain in the meeting, (c) the amount of financial assistance applied for, (d) the amount finally offered and (e) the amount granted. [35263]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The applicant concerned was Pall Europe Ltd. Mr. Roger Harris declared that his firm was the worldwide auditor for Pall Corporation, but that he had no personal involvement in the work. It was deemed sufficient for him to remain in the meeting on condition that he abstained from any vote on the application. The offer was for the amount applied for—£950,000. No payments have yet been made.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 461–64, if he will list the relevant conflict of interests by (a) member of the South West industrial development board and (b) the relevant company. [35267]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The board members declared their personal interests to the Department and acted correctly in not involving themselves in discussions of cases where a conflict with those interests arose.

  It is a matter of public record that Mr. Roger Harris's abstentions stemmed from the fact that KPMG, of which he is a senior partner, acted for the applicants as grant advisers or in other capacities.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what market research reports which referred to the trade in electro-shock weapons have been partially funded by his Department's export market research scheme since June 1994. [36363]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 July 1996]: The Department is not aware of any reports which refer to electro-shock batons having received support from the export marketing research scheme since June 1994.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 June;Official Report, column 513, when he expects to place in the Library, the memoranda and supporting documentation relating to the prior options review. [37457]
  464
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: I have today placed in the Library of the House memoranda setting out the rationale underlying the decisions announced on the following establishments:

  Establishment for which DTI Ministers are responsible:

  Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Institute of Arable Crops Research (BBSRC-funded institute)

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (BBSRC-funded institute)

  John Innes Centre (BBSRC-funded institute)

  Silsoe Research Institute (BBSRC-funded institute)

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Establishments for which Scottish Office Ministers are responsible:

  Fisheries Research Services

  Forestry Commission Research Division

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Establishment for which MAFF Ministers are responsible:

  Directorate of Fisheries Research.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment was made of the pension and redundancy costs of the privatisation option under the prior options review of the individual research institutes of the Biotechnical and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and the Partical Physics and Astronomy Research Council. [37398]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: Prior options reviews of MRC, NERC and BBSRC institutes remain to be completed. The review of the BBSRC's Institute of Arable Crops Research, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Jon Innes Centre and Silsoe Research Institute estimated pension transfer costs at up to £72.5 million and contingent staff liabilities at up to £64 million. The review of the Royal Observatories did not make any assessment for redundancy costs of privatisation. Pension transfers costs are still being assessed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a list showing the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by her Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37328]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total number of full-time equivalent staff within her Department engaged in the administration, oversight, audit and other regulation of each of the non-departmental
  465
  public bodies, agencies and similar bodies, sponsored by her Department, indicating the division within her Department responsible for each. [37504]

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

  Departmental Costs
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the total costs to her Department of the administration, oversight, audit and other regulation of all local authority activities within its responsibility, excluding work undertaken by Ofsted. [37502]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No discrete record is maintained of the cost incurred by the Department in dealing with issues relating to local authority responsibilities for education and employment. Many different elements of the Department's work relate to local authorities, and they could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total number of full-time equivalent staff in her Department engaged in the administration, oversight, audit and other regulation of local authority activities within the responsibility of her Department, excluding that undertaken by Ofsted, indicating the division within her Department which has responsibility for each activity. [37501]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No discrete record is maintained of the numbers of staff in the Department involved with issues relating to local authority responsibilities for education and employment. Many different elements of the Department's work relate to local authorities, and they could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost.

  Pupils, Devon
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of children educated in Devon by the local education authority in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [37425]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 145,093 pupils, including 3,018 part-time pupils, were being taught in schools maintained in Devon local education authority in January 1995. Information for January 1996 will be available in the autumn.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37231]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In line with the Government's open government policy, the Department always considers if it is appropriate to use the Internet to augment other publishing routes. An example is the recent publication of "The Skills Audit", which was published simultaneously on the Internet. The responsibility for considering the 466
  Internet as an additional publishing medium for our Command Papers and priced documents rests primarily with HMSO.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many parents of four-year-olds there are in each of the pilot local education authorities; how many vouchers have been issued in each local education authority; and what research she plans to identify which parents are still not receiving vouchers; [37110]

  (2) how many vouchers have been issued to parents of four-year-olds in the pilot areas; how many of these have been redeemed; what is the total cash value of the unredeemed vouchers; and if the cash value of the unredeemed vouchers will be retained by the Exchequer. [37107]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows estimates of the number of eligible children in each of the phase 1 authorities. These estimates of population and pupil numbers are less reliable when broken down both by local authority area and by year group. The figures for the number of vouchers issued are for the summer term only and relate to the period to 8 July. The figures for redemption relate only to the first half of the summer term. Research on parents and their use of vouchers will be part of a wider project on phase 1 to be undertaken in the early autumn.

  Local education authority

  Estimated Number of eligible children

  Number of vouchers issued

  Number of voucher parts redeemed

  Value of vouchers redeemed (£)

  Value of unredeemed vouchers (£)

  Norfolk

  9,300

  8,979

  36,910

  1,353,490

  273,192

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  1,129

  4,868

  178,510

  28,493

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  3,110

  12,968

  475,537

  94,682

  Westminster

  1,900

  1,391

  5,458

  200,145

  54,895

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research projects are(a) planned and (b) in progress to evaluate the pilot phase of the nursery voucher scheme; and in each case what is (i) the objective of the research project, (ii) the budget allocated, (iii) the timeframe and (iv) the expected date of publication of the research findings. [37104]

  Mr. Squire
  The research projects relating to phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme are:Parents survey: (i) to assess the effectiveness of the publicity campaign for, and attitudes to, phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme, and provide guidance on publicity for phase 2; (ii) £41,500; (iii) conducted in March-April 1996; (iv) report placed in Library on 8 July 1996.
  Providers survey: (i) to assess levels of awareness and experience of, and attitudes to, the voucher scheme and the information campaign for phase 1; (ii) £47,500; (iii) June 1996; (iv) report to be placed in the Library shortly.

  In addition data on the issue and redemption of vouchers will be analysed termly, and will include the number of vouchers issued, the number redeemed and patterns of redemption.
  467
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of parents in each of the pilot local education authorities have been found to be not in favour of the nursery voucher scheme. [37109]

  Mr. Squire
  In the survey of parents conducted shortly before the nursery education voucher scheme started in the phase 1 areas, the following proportions of parents rated the scheme unfavourably overall:

  Norfolk: 13 per cent.

  Kensington and Chelsea: 33 per cent.

  Westminster: 27 per cent.

  Wandsworth: 24 per cent.

  In Norfolk, where 87 per cent. of parents judged the scheme to be "very or quite good", parents were found to be better informed about the scheme than in the other areas.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of parents, in each of the participating local education authorities, were found to believe that they had not had enough information about the voucher scheme. [37111]

  Mr. Squire
  At the time of the parental survey conducted in the four phase 1 areas of the nursery education voucher scheme, 94 per cent. of parents were aware of the scheme. Overall, six in 10 parents wanted to know more. A breakdown by LEA is as follows:

  Norfolk: 57 per cent.

  Kensington and Chelsea: 65 per cent.

  Wandsworth: 45 per cent.

  Westminster: 73 per cent.

  The finding has already been taken into account in the dissemination of information for the remainder of phase 1 and in planning for phase 2.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to have sufficient evidence on the operation of the pilot phase of the voucher scheme to be able to draw firm conclusions for any changes needed before the scheme is extended nationally. [37106]

  Mr. Squire
  Early in the autumn.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total budget allocated to phase one of the voucher scheme broken down into budget headings; and in which areas actual spending has exceeded projected spending. [37108]

  Mr. Squire
  In the financial year 1996–97, £17.8 million has been allocated to cover the cost of vouchers for every eligible child in the phase 1 authorities. A total of £10.8 million of this money has been found from existing LEA budgets, the remainder is new money. In addition £5 million has been allocated for setting up the inspection regime, training inspectors for both phases of the scheme and for administration for phase 1 of the scheme. A total of £300,000 has been allocated for providing information to parents and providers in phase 1. None of these budgets has been exceeded.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 8 May,Official Report, column 148, in respect of each
  468
  local authority participating in the pilot phase of the voucher scheme, how many four-year-olds have been enrolled who did not have a voucher at the time of their enrolment; and how many applications have been made by providers on behalf of such children. [37469]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of children who did not have a voucher at the time of their enrolment is not held centrally. Maintained schools in Norfolk have so far made 56 special applications for such children, and there have been 62 applications by schools in Kensington and Chelsea, 93 in Wandsworth and 61 in Westminster. Overall, less than 2 per cent. of the applications have been made in this way.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 48, what proportion of the vouchers that have been redeemed to date, have been redeemed in (a) the private sector, (b) the voluntary sector and (c) the maintained sector. [37471]

  Mr. Squire
  As of 5 July, 64 per cent. of voucher parts had been redeemed by providers in the maintained sector and 36 per cent. by those in the private and voluntary sectors taken together.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 8 May,Official Report, column 149, how many voucher-bearing four-year-olds have been accepted by the 40 providers who did not accept four-year-olds prior to initial validation. [37468]

  Mr. Squire
  A total of 110 voucher-bearing four-year-olds attend those providers who did not have any four-year-olds on roll at the time of initial registration.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 48, how many of the providers now accepting voucher-bearing children, are able to offer such children (a) one session, (b) two sessions and (c) three or more sessions, per week. [37470]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Records are not held of the number of sessions offered by providers, only of those provided. The following table shows the number of sessions attended by children, taken from voucher returns made by 11 June.

  Number of sessions attended

  Pupils attending one provider

  Pupils attending two or more providers

  One

  35

  0

  Two

  343

  1

  Three or more

  10,826

  592

  Providers offering only one session cannot join the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of parents who have changed their choice of provider as a result of the voucher scheme. [37404]

  Mr. Squire
  The only evidence currently available comes from the survey of parents conducted just before the summer term, where, at this early stage in the nursery education voucher scheme, few reported changing their
  469
  choice of provider. The expectation is that, over time, a larger number of places of differing types will be created in order to match parental demand.

  School Standards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and proportion of grant-maintained schools deemed by Ofsted(a) to be failing and (b) to have serious weaknesses, requiring follow-up visits. [37158]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Nine grant-maintained schools have been identified by Her Majesty's chief inspector as failing or likely to fail and therefore in need of special measures. On the basis of the latest comparable figures the proportion of GM schools found to be failing is 1.9 per cent. of those inspected.

  Schools having serious weaknesses are not specifically identified as such by registered inspectors. 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.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and proportion of local education authority-maintained schools deemed by Ofsted(a) to be failing and (b) to have serious weaknesses, requiring follow-up visits. [37159]

  Mr. Squire
  A total of 173 local education authority-maintained schools have been identified by Her Majesty's chief inspector as failing or likely to fail and therefore in need of special measures. On the basis of the latest comparable figures the proportion of LEA schools found to be failing is 2.1 per cent. of those inspected.

  Schools having serious weaknesses are not specifically identified as such by registered inspectors. 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.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to submit a programme to the European Commission under objective 4 of the European social fund for 1997–99. [37467]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have no present plans to submit an objective 4 plan to the European Commission.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the (i) target intake and (ii) actual intake for primary and early years teacher training in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996; and what is the target intake for 1997. [37255]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The target intakes for primary teacher training in England in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 together with the actual intake for 1995–96 are set out in the following table. The actual intake figures for 1996–97 will not be known until after courses start in the autumn. The Government do not publish separate targets for early years teacher training.
  470

  Target

  Actual

  1995–96

  12,115

  13,601

  1996–97

  11,500

  n/a

  1997–98

  12,200

  n/a

  Pre-school Provision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was(a) the number and (b) the percentage of four-year-olds in pre-school provision in each local education authority and nationally in 1996; [37256]

  (2) what was (a) the number and (b) the percentage of three-year-olds in pre-school provision in each local education authority and nationally in 1996; [37257]

  (3) what was (a) the number and (b) the percentage of three and four-year-olds in pre-school provision in each local education authority and nationally in 1996. [37258]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in England in January 1996—provisional—is shown in the following table. The Department does not publish information on participation rates of individual age cohorts by local education authority. Participation rates for all pupils aged under five for each local education authority will be available in the autumn.

  Pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England1

  Age

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of population at 31 December 1995

  32

  209,200

  32

  43

  155,100

  24

  3 and 4

  364,300

  28

  1 These figures are not directly comparable with those released in previous years due to changes in the data collected.

  2 Includes pupils aged two. Excludes pupils born between 1 September 1991 and 31 December 1991.

  3 Includes pupils born between 1 September 1991 and 31 December 1991. Excludes pupils born between 1 September 1990 and 31 December 1990.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the agencies for which her Department is responsible and the costs incurred by each for printing(a) all publications and (b) its annual report in the last year for which figures are available. [37463]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has two next steps agencies: the Employment Service; and the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Information on the costs incurred on printing all publications is not recorded separately by the two agencies and could be disaggregated from other printing costs only at disproportionate cost.
  471
  Information is, however, available about the specific cost of printing the agencies' annual report and accounts. The cost of printing the Employment Service annual report and accounts for 1995–96 is expected to be around £23,000. The cost of printing the 1995–96 Teachers' Pensions Agency annual report and accounts was £5,400.

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many five, six and seven-year-olds there are(a) in each local education authority and (b) nationally. [37150]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: The latest information on the numbers of pupils in school in each local education authority area in England who were aged between five and seven years of age is shown in the following table.

  Pupils aged 5–7 years of age (1)(2) in local education authority area in England

  January 1995

  Local education authority

  Pupils

  Corporation of London

  127

  Camden

  6,018

  Greenwich

  9,160

  Hackney

  8,170

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,419

  Islington

  6,606

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,572

  Lambeth

  8,601

  Lewisham

  9,130

  Southwark

  9,815

  Tower Hamlets

  8,760

  Wandsworth

  8,605

  Westminster

  5,072

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,846

  Barnet

  11,376

  Bexley

  9,093

  Brent

  9,641

  Bromley

  11,282

  Croydon

  13,280

  Ealing

  11,514

  Enfield

  10,669

  Haringey

  8,623

  Harrow

  8,035

  Havering

  9,070

  Hillingdon

  9,676

  Hounslow

  8,032

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,060

  Merton

  6,509

  Newham

  11,213

  Redbridge

  9,295

  Richmond upon Thames

  6,210

  Sutton

  6,476

  Waltham Forest

  8,791

  Birmingham

  45,341

  Coventry

  12,801

  Dudley

  11,898

  Sandwell

  12,664

  Solihull

  8,552

  Walsall

  11,099

  Wolverhampton

  10,382

  Knowsley

  7,554

  Liverpool

  20,220

  St. Helens

  7,300

  Sefton

  11,589

  Wirral

  13,938

  Bolton

  11,323

  Bury

  7,358

  472

  Pupils aged 5–7 years of age (1)(2) in local education authority area in England

  January 1995

  Local education authority

  Pupils

  Manchester

  18,999

  Oldham

  10,020

  Rochdale

  9,278

  Salford

  9,928

  Stockport

  11,674

  Tameside

  9,515

  Trafford

  8,779

  Wigan

  12,284

  Barnsley

  8,680

  Doncaster

  12,454

  Rotherham

  10,421

  Sheffield

  19,243

  Bradford

  21,809

  Calderdale

  8,330

  Kirklees

  15,657

  Leeds

  28,340

  Wakefield

  13,154

  Gateshead

  7,545

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10,333

  North Tyneside

  7,642

  South Tyneside

  6,330

  Sunderland

  12,381

  Isles of Scilly

  63

  Avon

  36,777

  Bedfordshire

  23,697

  Berkshire

  30,924

  Buckinghamshire

  27,074

  Cambridge

  26,654

  Cheshire

  38,923

  Cleveland

  24,624

  Cornwall

  17,641

  Cumbria

  17,932

  Derbyshire

  36,029

  Devon

  38,050

  Dorset

  22,743

  Durham

  22,886

  East Sussex

  25,100

  Essex

  60,963

  Gloucestershire

  21,148

  Hampshire

  63,188

  Hereford and Worcester

  26,592

  Hertfordshire

  40,358

  Humberside

  35,985

  Isle of Wight

  4,490

  Kent

  61,756

  Lancashire

  57,654

  Leicestershire

  36,577

  Lincolnshire

  22,699

  Norfolk

  27,148

  North Yorkshire

  26,504

  Northamptonshire

  25,429

  Northumberland

  11,389

  Nottinghamshire

  40,605

  Oxfordshire

  22,009

  Shropshire

  16,623

  Somerset

  18,053

  Staffordshire

  41,776

  Suffolk

  24,876

  Surrey

  38,875

  Warwickshire

  19,322

  West Sussex

  26,245

  Wiltshire

  23,782

  England

  1,918,724

  1 Ages as at 31 August 1994.

  2 Includes pupils in all maintained and non-maintained schools.

WALES

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authority inquiries into child exploitation of abuse of children looked after or in care are currently taking place in south Wales. [36508]

  Mr. Hague
  I am not aware of any current local authority inquiries into these matters in south Wales. There is, I understand, an investigation by the police and Cardiff social services currently underway concerning allegations of abuse by a former residential child care social worker.

  Chapels (Preservation)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in respect of the preservation of Welsh chapels since the publication of the second report from the Welsh Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93, HC 403, on the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments. [36586]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for issues relating to redundant chapels has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the progress towards establishing a redundant chapels fund in Wales.
  In its response to the Welsh Affairs Committee Report. "The Preservation of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments", the Government indicated that it was prepared to fund 70% of the costs of a mechanism to care for the best redundant historic chapels for which no other arrangement could be made.
  In November 1994 the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, on Cadw's behalf, organised a Conference to identify the problems which such a mechanism might address and to promote the involvement of interested people. That Conference led to the establishment of a Working Group to consider the issue under the chairmanship of Dr. Roger Wools—an architect who has taken a particular interest in historic chapels. The Group's members included the General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Wales, an Executive Committee member of CAPEL, the Conservation Officer of Monmouth Borough Council, an archaeologist and a Chartered Building Surveyor. The terms of reference to which the Group has worked were:

  to examine questions of redundancy and to consider if chapels of significance will be presented for which preservation is desirable;

  to consider what mechanisms could be put in place which with support from the Welsh Office might address the needs of such buildings.

  The Group has consulted widely, hearing the views of representatives of organisations concerned with chapels. Its report is due shortly.
  We look forward to receiving the Group's report which we hope will help us identify important chapels which may be facing redundancy and indicate the best way forward.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds there will be in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and what were the figures in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995. [36599]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is as follows:

  Residents in Wales

  Number (thousands) aged:

  Year

  16

  17

  16 and 17

  1992

  34.4

  35.9

  70.3

  1993

  32.7

  34.2

  66.9

  1994

  33.2

  32.5

  65.8

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics mid-year estimates.

  Year

  Number (thousands) aged:

  16

  17

  16 and 17

  1995

  36.5

  33.2

  69.8

  1997

  38.1

  38.6

  76.7

  1998

  37.4

  38.1

  75.5

  1999

  37.5

  37.4

  74.9

  2000

  37.2

  37.5

  74.8

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department mid-year projections (1994 based).

  Note:

  Figures may appear not to add to the totals shown. This is due to rounding.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department and the number sent out of each. [37460]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is for 1995 and is as given in the 1996 Welsh Office "Survey Control Report". The forms listed as follows included those sent to agricultural main holdings.

  Statistical forms issued to businesses by The Welsh Office in 1995

  Number of forms

  Agriculture

  June Agriculture and Horticulture Survey

  22,000

  December Survey of Agriculture

  4,900

  Dairy Enterprise Cost Study

  100

  Farm Business Study

  550

  Lowland Beef Enterprise Study

  60

  Lowland Sheep Production Study

  90

  Study of Welsh Slaughtering/Meat Processing Capacity

  77

  Health

  Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics

  413

  Social Services

  Independent Registered Homes for Mental Disorder or Substance Dependence

  206

  Independent Registered Care Homes

  511

  Residential Care Homes: Separate Unit

  36

  Return of Particulars of Voluntary Children's Homes

  3

  475

  Statistical forms issued to businesses by The Welsh Office in 1995

  Number of forms

  Industry

  Electricity Generation and Supply

  6

  Record of Openings and Closures

  250

  Customer Service Surveys

  55

  Trade Mission Service: 6 month questionnaire

  170

  12 month questionnaire

  91

  Full-time Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) 16-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 18-year-olds in full-time education who are (i) studying A/AS courses, (ii) in higher education, (iii) studying BTEC national courses, (iv) studying GCSE and (v) undertaking other studies; and what percentage of (1) 16-year-olds, (2) 17-year-olds and (3) 18-year-olds are in full-time education in the latest year for which figures are available. [36583]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is in the following table:

  16, 17 and 18 year olds in full-time education in Wales 1994–951

  Per cent.

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Aged 18

  Aged 16–18

  LEVEL OF STUDY

  In further education (FE) and higher education (HE) institutions:

  A/AS

  11

  14

  7

  11

  Higher education2

  —

  1

  54

  14

  BTEC3

  18

  23

  21

  21

  GCSE

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Other4

  13

  14

  10

  13

  Total in FE and HE

  45

  53

  92

  60

  In schools5

  A/AS

  8—

  8—

  8—

  31

  BTEC5

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8

  GCSE

  8—

  8—

  8—

  1

  Other7

  8—

  8—

  8—

  —

  Total in schools

  55

  47

  8

  40

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Percentage of population in full-time education

  72

  58

  44

  58

  Notes:

  1Provisional. Percentages may not add up to totals due to rounding.

  2Includes BTEC HND, HNC and other BTEC higher education courses.

  3Includes all BTEC further education courses.

  4Includes courses leading to unspecified qualifications.

  5Level of study in maintained secondary schools and independent schools only.

  6Includes BTEC National Certificates and Diplomas; BTEC First Certificates and Diplomas; City and Guilds' Diploma of Vocational Education (at National and Intermediate level); and all GNVQs.

  7Includes Post A level studies and NVQs at Levels 1–3 and other pupils aged 16 or over not accounted for elsewhere.

  8Not available; - nil or less than half the final digit shown.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency, Further Education Student Record and the January 1995 Schools' Census.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 342, when he initiated discussions on the future provision of wheelchairs for disabled people in Wales; with which voluntary organisations in Wales he proposes consulting on his future policy; when he hopes to conclude his consultation; and when he plans to make operational revisions to his policy. [36594]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials have been in discussion with health authorities and service providers in Wales following details of the proposed new arrangements in England becoming available. These are continuing but I hope shortly to be able to consult the major organisations representing wheelchair users in Wales about the issues involved.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of those who have undertaken a youth training programme who have(a) been subsequently employed and (b) achieved a recognised qualification in each training and council area in each year from 1990 to 1996. [36582]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The proportion of young people leaving youth training and(a) who gained a job and (b) achieved a recognised qualification in each year from 1991–92 to 1994–5 in each TEC area are shown in the following tables. No figures are available for 1990 as not all TECs were operational in that year. Figures for 1995–1996 are not yet available.

  (a) Proportion of leavers in a job by year

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mid Glamorgan

  48

  42

  47

  52

  South Glamorgan

  41

  43

  45

  n/a

  Gwent

  43

  44

  45

  54

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North-east Wales

  68

  80

  n/a

  64

  North-west Wales

  54

  n/a

  55

  59

  West Wales

  42

  40

  44

  53

  Wales

  47

  45

  48

  56

  Note:

  Full time, part time or self employment.

  n/a=Not available due to low number of responses.

  Source:

  YT national follow-up survey.

  (b) Proportion of leavers gaining a full/part qualification by year

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mid Glamorgan

  38

  33

  46

  42

  South Glamorgan

  36

  31

  46

  n/a

  Gwent

  36

  37

  47

  43

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North-east Wales

  61

  73

  n/a

  51

  477

  (b) Proportion of leavers gaining a full/part qualification by year

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North-west Wales

  61

  n/a

  47

  48

  West Wales

  42

  39

  42

  48

  Wales

  43

  38

  46

  46

  Note:

  n/a = Not available due to low number of responses

  Source:

  YT national follow-up survey.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures have been taken to alleviate traffic congestion in and around holiday resorts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [37089]

  Mr. Hague
  Access to many Welsh holiday resorts has been significantly improved by the motorway and trunk road improvements—costing some £3 billion—which have been completed since 1979. Roads within holiday resorts are the responsibility of the relevant local authorities, and it is for them to assess the need for any improvements.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums have been allocated by his Department to each training and enterprise council in Wales for modern apprenticeships in year(a) 1, (b) 2 and (c) 3. [37384]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested for years 1 and 2 is shown in the following table. Figures for 1996–97 will not become available until September 1996, as TECs have yet to finalise contracts with their providers.

  Modern apprenticeship expenditure (£ million)

  1994–951

  1995–962

  Gwent

  1.618

  0.894

  Mid Glamorgan

  1.845

  0.476

  North-east Wales

  0.831

  0.330

  Powys

  1.097

  0.129

  South Glamorgan

  0.492

  0.221

  Targed

  1.149

  0.309

  West Wales

  2.530

  0.677

  Total Wales

  9.562

  3.036

  11994–95 expenditure includes monies for capital equipment.

  21995–96 expenditure figures are provisional.

  Eurofreight Terminal
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a Eurofreight terminal in south Wales; what consultations he has conducted with the chairman of the Welsh development agency concerning the pre-planning study; and when he anticipates commencement of the project's construction phase. [37610]

  Mr. Hague
  On 3 April I agreed that the Welsh development agency should enter into further discussions with the promoters of the proposal for a rail freight terminal at Wentloog; these discussions are continuing and the WDA will be reporting back to me in due course. I have not held discussions with the WDA chairman on 478
  any pre-planning study. The timing of any developments is dependent on the proposals put forward by the promoters and the outcome of the discussions with the WDA.

  Extra-contractual Referral System
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultation paper he has issued on simplifying the extra-contractual referral system; if he will list the consultees on this document; and if he will make a statement. [37608]

  Mr. Hague
  I have arranged for copies of the letters sent to the NHS in Wales explaining the proposals for streamlining aspects of the extra-contractual referral process to be placed in the Library. Guidance on other aspects of the process is being developed in partnership with health authorities, NHS trusts and GPs. This guidance is likely to be issued in the autumn.

SCOTLAND

  Saltire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 485, if he will review the list of persons whose birthdays are marked by the flying of the Saltire from public buildings and include the birthdays of (a) Robert Burns and (b) Robert the Bruce. [36241]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am giving consideration to the matter.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that when a new unitary authority has succeeded a number of old authorities the liability limit of 70 per cent. of costs for inherited legal commitments will be calculated by an aggregate total of the old authorities; and if he will make a statement. [37125]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Demitting local authorities' ability to commit their successors to capital expenditure in 1996–97 was restricted to 70 per cent., of each authorities' individual capital allocation. I have undertaken to give each successor authority a capital allocation equal to the amount of legal commitments they inherit from each of their predecessors, provided that the individual demitting authorities did not exceed their commitment limits. The mechanism which has been put in place for dealing with inherited legal commitments was proposed by and agreed with COSLA last year. I do not propose to change it now.

  Speech and Language Disorders
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children from homes in Scotland with(a) specific speech and (b) language disorders are currently having their special educational needs met in establishments in England as a result of a lack of appropriate provision in Scotland. [37017]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  479
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants or other financial assistance have been awarded by the Scottish Office, in the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97, to organisations whose sole remit is to represent children with specific speech and language disorders. [37015]

  Mr. Robertson
  No funding has been awarded in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 to any organisation concerned solely with representing children with specific speech and language disorders.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the information about advice, counselling and advocacy for parents of children with special educational needs, currently being gathered by the Scottish Office, will be made available to parents; and in what form. [37014]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Views were invited by 1 July 1996 from statutory bodies, voluntary organisations and others on the content, layout and format of the Scottish Office publication, "A Parents Guide to Special Educational Needs".

  A wide range of detailed responses has been made and these are being given careful consideration. The aim is to have a revised version of the guide available before the end of this year. The current edition of the guide is available in printed form in English, Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi and Cantonese and also in English on audio cassette. Views were sought from those consulted on appropriate formats for the revision.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on advocacy for children and the parents of children with special educational needs during the preparation of a record of needs. [37016]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Scottish Office encourages openness and co-operation between all parties involved in the preparation of a record of needs and acknowledges that advocacy for children and the parents of children with special educational needs, where an involved party feels it appropriate, can contribute to the process.

  To support this the Scottish Office has assisted the national voluntary organisation, Children in Scotland, to establish the special needs forum which provides information and training about special educational needs for parents and voluntary organisations. It also provided financial assistance to that organisation to publish "A Special Partnership", a guide book for named persons and parents, to help them to participate more effectively in the recording processes. Additionally, I have asked the Scottish Office, in the light of responses received to the consultation about the new version of its publication, "A Parents' Guide to Special Educational Needs", to review the need for further encouragement and guidance about advocacy services.

  Poverty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to bring together and publish all information held by his Department about poverty in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [37340]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There is no simple or meaningful way to define poverty. The principal current sources of information on the incomes of households are "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1992–93" and the "Family Expenditure Survey 1994–95. The latter includes information specifically on Scottish households. Both publications are available in the Library.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, in(a) real and (b) constant prices the resources available to Scottish Homes for construction work in each year since 1990 projected forward to 1997–98; [37445]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources of Scottish Homes to fund the preparation of plans by (a) housing associations and (b) co-operatives for construction works to commence at the start of 1997–98; and if he will make a statement on trends in the level of support for such projects over the last three years; [37444]

  (3) which Scottish Homes construction projects for 1996–97 have been (a) deferred and (b) cancelled becauseof resource constraints; what was their value; and what was the nature of the constraints. [37446]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Homes development programme represents the total available each year for investment in projects undertaken by housing associations and co-operatives, private developers and others. The annual development programme in the period to 1996–97 and the amount estimated by Scottish Homes for 1997–98, based on its currently planned resources, are given in the table at cash and constant, or real, 1996–97 prices.

  £ million

  Cash prices

  Constant 1996–97 prices

  1990–91

  203.0

  248.4

  1991–92

  235.0

  270.9

  1992–93

  282.6

  312.9

  1993–94

  306.6

  329.7

  1994–95

  319.5

  337.4

  1995–96

  320.6

  329.3

  1996–97

  280.0

  280.0

  1997–98 (estimated)

  260.0

  253.7

  Within the total level of resources available to it, Scottish Homes continually makes decisions on priorities to be given to individual projects. As a result, if more funding assistance is sought than can be accommodated within the overall programme, certain projects may be deferred. However, such decisions are a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Scottish Homes supplements its grant-in-aid from receipts and other sources. I am satisfied that, given the

  481
  overall need to restrain public expenditure in order to ensure the maintenance of economic growth, Scottish Homes has sufficient resources at its disposal to support substantial investment work in 1997–98. These resources will also lever in significant sums of private finance for housing development.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department and the number sent out of each. [37465]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Title of survey

  Number of responses requested per year

  Scottish Register of Employment

  500

  Oil Related Employment Survey

  1,000

  Accommodation Occupancy Survey

  13,680

  Network Customer Survey

  500

  Manufacturing Trade Flow Survey

  412

  Pay Conditions in Major Scottish Manufacturing Companies

  153

  Socio Economic Impact of the Skye Bridge

  400

  Survey of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in the Oil and Gas Industry

  500

  Skill Needs and Shortages in Electronics

  180

  Appraisal of Economic Impact of Scottish Delegations Attendance at Europartneria

  120

  The Economic Potential of Yachting in the Highlands and Islands

  90

  Sound of Barra Ferry Study

  90

  Competitive Locations Business Survey

  1,500

  Residential Care Homes

  1,300

  Facilities for the Daycare and Education of Children and Support to Families

  833

  Day Care Centres

  500

  Residential Establishments for Children/Young People

  154

  Waste Reduction Re Use and Recycling in the Scottish Islands

  384

  Gyle Impact Study—Gyle Retailers Survey

  480

  Sawmill Survey

  443

  Round Fencing Manufacturers Survey

  67

  Private Sector Softwood Timber Removals Survey

  33

  Farmers Attitudes Toward Tree Planting and Management

  190

  Economics of Farm Forestry

  721

  Employers' Views on Education

  1,000

  Evaluation of the National Record of Achievement

  60

  The Use of Nomination Arrangements by Scottish Local Authorities

  244

  Measuring the Effectiveness of the Special Needs Allowance Package

  48

  Supporting Voluntary Committee Members of Scottish Housing Associations and Coops

  200

  Review of the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants Scheme

  570

  Evaluation of the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  1,600

  CAP Reform and Land Management Policy Measures

  307

  Main Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  32,700

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  12,500

  Minor Agricultural Census

  6,000

  Costs and Earnings of Fishing Vessels in Scotland

  1,200

  Farm Economic Survey

  2,000

  Surveys of Farm Accounts

  620

  482

  Title of survey

  Number of responses requested per year

  Horticultural Yields and Prices Survey (soft fruit)

  141

  Cabbage and Cauliflower Survey

  84

  Combine Crops Production Survey

  640

  Production and Marketing of Hatching Eggs and Chicks Return

  120

  Poultry Packing Station Throughputs

  60

  Store Market Reporting

  478

  Hay and Straw Prices

  212

  Autumn Store Sales Return

  9

  Bank Survey

  21

  Deer Survey

  71

  Survey of Fertiliser Practice

  250

  Pesticide Usage in Farm and Commercial Grain Stores

  500

  Pesticide Usage on Vegetables for Human Consumption

  25

  Pesticide Usage on Protected Crops

  10

  Utilisation of Milk

  1,440

  Survey of Milk Prices

  480

  Nuclear Reactor
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to provide funding assistance to meet the decommissioning costs of the experimental nuclear reactor at the Scottish universities reactor centre, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement. [37400]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: I am aware that the consortium of universities which run the Scottish universities reactor centre will need to incur expenditure on decommissioning the reactor over the next three years. We shall be considering this pressure on the higher education sector during the survey alongside others which have been drawn to our attention.

  Public Appointments
  Mr Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to which public offices in Scotland the Lord Advocate makes(a) appointments and (b) recommendations of appointments. [32287]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]:

  (a) The Lord Advocate is responsible for the appointment of:

  Advocate Deputes;

  Procurators Fiscal;

  the Chairman and Members of the Scottish Law Commission;

  the Chairman and Members of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals;

  the Chairman of any Building Societies Appeals Tribunal in Scotland.

  (b) The Lord Advocate is consulted about or makes nominations in respect of a wide range of public appointments.

DEFENCE

  Precision Guided Missiles
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when approaches were made to Her Majesty's Government in relation to the(a) resale and (b) transfer of precision guided missiles supplied to the United Arab Emirates by (i) ISC-Ferranti and (ii) GEC-Marconi; what was the outcome of these approaches; and if he will list the (1) resales and (2) transfers which have subsequently taken place indicating the country concerned.[36831]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a commercially confidential matter.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his officials reviewed the ISC-Ferranti precision guided missile for compliance with the missile technology control regime; and what was the outcome of that review. [36605]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not normal practice to reveal advice on individual export licence applications, but all applications relating to missiles are reviewed against our obligations under the missile technology control regime, as well as other considerations.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which section of his Department was responsible for expressing the concern referred to on page 865, sub-paragraph vi of the Scott inquiry report in relation to ISC-Ferranti contracts for precision guided missiles. [36606]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not normal practice to disclose the source of advice, nor did Sir Richard Scott see the need in this particular case.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department(a) prescribes and (b) administers Lariam as an anti-malarial prophylaxis to military pilots and air crew. [36872]

  Mr. Soames
  Larium is not prescribed as an anti-malarial prophylaxis to service pilots and aircrew.

  Trident Programme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident submarines there are in the Trident programme; how many have been acquired; and how many are on station at any given time. [37393]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are four submarines in the Trident programme; so far two have entered service. It is not our practice to give details of the dispositions of the strategic nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to commission the last Trident submarine in its programme. [37392]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  HMS Vengeance, the fourth Trident submarine, will enter service around the turn of the century.
  484
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the additional contribution of the last Trident submarine to the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent capability. [37394]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The four boat Trident fleet will guarantee continuous deterrent patrols throughout the planned 25-year life of the submarines, which includes periods for refit.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from the United States authorities concerning the contents of the bunkers at Kamisayah in southern Iraq in March 1991. [37388]

  Mr. Soames
  No British troops were present in the vicinity of the Kamisayah arms depot when it was destroyed by US troops in March 1991. We continue, nonetheless, to take a close interest in the investigation being carried out by the US authorities into the incident. I understand that the US troops involved were 5 km from the depot when it was destroyed and that, further, a preliminary study of the health of those involved shows that there is nothing at present to suggest that they were exposed to chemical agents.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37245]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have already released on the MOD home page—http:www.mod.uk—a summary of the 1996"Statement on the Defence Estimates", and have a sub-page for major defence policy speeches. This is in addition to press releases and other information.

  The use of the Internet is kept under continual review as we recognise its potential as a publishing medium.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the International Court of Justice's recent decision on nuclear weapons on the position of the commanding officer of a naval SSBN—strategic submarine ballistic nuclear. [37345]

  Mr. Soames
  We do not believe the court's advisory opinions will have any implications for the commanding officers of our SSBNs.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an additional review has been made of the paper on the distribution of uranium 235 and plutonium 239 around the air force base at Greenham Common, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 3 July 1995,Official Report, column 93; and if he will make a statement on the prospects for the public release of this report. [37739]

  Mr. Soames
  This report has been reviewed and arrangements are being made to release it to the Public Record Office as soon as possible.
  485
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents involving nuclear weapons have taken place in the United Kingdom, or its dependent territories, since 1966. [37514]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: A nuclear weapon accident is defined as
  "any unplanned occurrence involving the destruction of, or damage or suspected damage to, a nuclear weapon, which has resulted in actual, or potential hazard to life, or property, or which may have impaired nuclear safety".

  This definition is subdivided into two categories: category 1—where there has not been a release of radioactive material; category 2—where a release of radioactive material has been detected, or (in the early stages) the possibility of a release cannot be excluded. There has never been a category 2 accident, but seven category 1 accidents have been reported since 1966. Without exception these occurrences caused absolutely no hazard either to public safety or that of MoD personnel.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings Defence Ministers have had with the Empty Homes Agency to discuss how empty MoD married quarters might be offered for sale or lease by housing associations or local authorities in areas of housing needs; and if he will make a statement. [37175]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has held a number of meetings with the Empty Homes Agency during 1995 and 1996 to discuss issues related to void properties.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on maintenance of the married quarters estate in each of the past five years. [37605]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on Tuesday 9 July,Official Report, column 727.

  Transport and Movements Executive
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Transport and Movements Executive in 1996–97. [37886]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive has been set the following key targets for 1996–97:

  1. To confirm and satisfy the operational requirement through the achievement of a satisfactory operational evaluation.

  Method of Assessment

  (a) The criteria for KT should be an objective assessment by the chief executive based on:

  Key post manning requirements are met.

  Staff training and skills are to the required standard.

  Owned infrastructure can achieve appropriate throughput and sustain 24-hour operation.

  G4 transport and movements contracts or other available transport and movements assets provide the means of meeting the operational requirement.

  The required service level agreements are in place and functioning.

  (b) Crisis management exercise.

  (c) The requirements for trained personnel, op eqpt.

  486
  2. To meet the agreed service levels for single service top-level budgets within its wider peacetime transport and movements role.

  An objective assessment by DG Log Sp (A) that DTMX has met its wider peacetime role based on the following criteria:

  (a) The owner's advisory boards.

  (b) Confirmation of success in meeting the criteria for key target 1.

  (c) Confirmation that the G1 transport and movements contracts base meets customer's requirements.

  3. To provide an agreed transport and movements service which meets the transport and movements element of the standard priority system requirements as laid down in JSP 336, to time in 96.5 per cent. of cases.

  4. To implement the agency's competing for quality strategy specifically:

  (a) To complete the Falkland Islands resupply contract with the option of a commercial partner by 31 December 1996.

  (b) To complete the tri-service freight distribution market test by:

  Evaluating tenders by 30 September 1996.

  Letting the contract by 11 November 1996.

  Commencing the contract by 15 May 1997.

  (c) To re-examine the procurement strategy of following existing contracts:

  Rail

  Freight forwarding.

  (d) Identify unavoidable excess spare capacity within owned assets and assess the opportunity to marketing this by December 1996.

  (e) Evaluate the requirement for and procurement of additional MoD shipping assets.

  5. To develop internal management systems to:

  (a) Produce accruals accounts for 1996–97 for a full NAO audit.

  (b) Achieve activity-based costing for 90 per cent. of DTMX budgetary responsibilities by 31 March 1997.

  (c) Continue to pursue the targets set in the DTMX information systems strategy.

  6. Through the use of the DTMX ABC system identify input or output efficiencies against:

  (a) Costing appropriate management charges against activities within DTMX's budgetary area and implementing a process for internal and external benchmarking of these costs.

  (b) Make output efficiencies in management costs within the following functional areas:

  Lands Ops.

  Sea Ops.

  Unaccompanied baggage—initiate management procedures in policing services and changes to the management organisation to identify output efficiencies.

  Chemical Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons files with the classmarks WO 188/679, WO 188/702 and WO 188/707–708 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning the work of the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, are currently retained by his Department; and if he will open them. [37617]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In line with the open government initiative, arrangements are being made to review the papers listed at the Public Record Office under references
  487
  WO 188/679, 702 and 707–708 to establish whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Armed Forces Accommodation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to build further armed forces accommodation before the end of the current financial year. [37067]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: In addition to the 61 new married quarters and 14 single accommodation projects currently under construction, we plan to build a further two new married quarters before the end of the current financial year.

HEALTH

  Nurses (Pay Award)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have received the pay award made for the current year. [35794]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service employers are negotiating on pay for nurses and other NHS staff, as recommended by the Nursing Pay Review Body.

  Ambulance Response Times (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on ambulance response times in Cornwall. [35797]

  Mr. Horam
  West Country Ambulance National Health Service trust, which includes Cornwall, dealt with over 86,000 emergency calls in 1995–96 and reached nearly 80,000 of them within the patients charter target of 19 minutes. This represents over 8,000 more calls reached within 19 minutes than in 1994–95.

  Smoking-related Deaths
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths arising from smoking-related diseases. [35798]

  Mr. Horam
  Government strategy to reduce smoking is based on those measures which are known to work. Our record in reducing smoking prevalence to 26 per cent. is one of the best in Europe.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the private finance initiative in the health service. [35799]

  Mr. Horam
  The private finance initiative is providing the services and facilities which enable the national health service to concentrate on providing high-quality health care.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on the use of private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement. [35808]
  488
  Mr. Horam
  All capital developments in the national health service have to be tested for private finance. Private finance will be used if it offers the best value for money and transfers risk to the private sector.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions he has varied his decision on local strategies for acute services in response to alternative proposals arising from private finance initiatives. [36380]

  Mr. Horam
  Capital developments in the national health service, whether privately or publicly financed, must be consistent with local health-care strategies. Any capital scheme must also be supported by the main purchasers of the trust concerned, who can therefore ensure that the scheme is consistent with their purchasing strategies.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the available supply of general practitioners. [35800]

  Mr. Malone
  The most recent information is for 1 October 1995 when there were 26,702 general medical practitioners in England.

  Consultant Anaesthetists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address shortages of consultant anaesthetists in the NHS. [35801]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 20 March 1996 at column 243.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of NHS trusts to discuss administrative costs. [35802]

  Mr. Malone
  I meet national health service trust chairmen regularly. The Government are committed to the effective management of the NHS and to reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Our programme for streamlining NHS management will release £300 million for patient care by the end of 1997. We have also launched and are now implementing two efficiency scrutinies which will reduce bureaucracy—eliminating over 17 million forms a year.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of his departmental expenditure is allocated to administration. [35796]

  Mr. Horam
  Spending on administration in all health authorities, the Prescription Pricing Authority, the Dental Practice Board, the Departmental of Health and on general practitioner fundholder management allowances accounted for 4.8 per cent. of total departmental expenditure in 1994–95.

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of health service managers in(a)1990 and (b)1996. [35803]
  489
  Mr. Malone
  The number of general and senior managers in the hospital and community health services at September 1990 was published in the Department of Health's statistics bulletin "NHS hospital and community health services non-medical staff in England: 1983–1993" published in October 1994. The number of general medical services practice managers at October 1990 was published in the Departmental of Health's statistics bulletin "Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England: 1985–1995" published in May 1996. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Information on the numbers of managers in the general dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services is not available centrally. Information for 1996 is not currently available.

  Newbury Community Hospital
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in securing funds to build the proposed community hospital in Newbury. [35804]

  Mr. Horam
  The West Berkshire Priority Care Service National Health Service trust has produced plans for a new hospital. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Jim Kerevon, chairman of the trust, for further information.

  Hospital Appointments (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce measures to reduce waiting times for hospital appointments in the north-west region. [35805]

  Mr. Horam
  Last year we set the first national standard for the waiting time from general practitioner referral to being seen by a hospital specialist. Latest figures show that in the north-west 86 per cent. of patients were seen within 13 weeks of referral and 98 per cent. were seen within 26 weeks. This is better than performance nationally and health authorities and trusts in the region are working to further reduce these waiting times.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to general practitioner fundholding practices in respect of the training of paediatric nurses; and if he will make a statement. [35806]

  Mr. Horam
  The training of paediatric nurses is the responsibility of community national health service trusts and local education and training consortia. National education and training planning guidance is issued annually.

  Cancer Treatments
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the treatment of cancer patients. [35809]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has received a number of recent representations concerning the treatment of cancer patients. These have been mainly concerned with patients who have suffered adverse effects following radiotherapy treatment for cancer, and the implementation of the recommendations of the recent Health Select Committee's report on breast cancer services.
  490

  Nursing Students
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chief executives of health trusts to discuss the available complement of nursing students. [35810]

  Mr. Horam
  We are in frequent contact with chief executives of health trusts about a number of issues, including education and training.

  Health Authority Budgets (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the budgets allocated by his Department to health authorities in Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36491]

  Mr. Horam
  The total funds allocated to the health authorities in the county of Cheshire in the period 1991–92 to 1995–96 are listed in the table.

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Halton DHA

  47,047

  49,459

  46,275

  0

  0

  Warrington DHA

  73,405

  76,726

  75,878

  0

  0

  North Cheshire DHA

  0

  0

  0

  119,319

  121,017

  Crewe DHA

  77,947

  81,495

  85,229

  0

  0

  Macclesfield DHA

  67,570

  66,805

  67,356

  0

  0

  Chester DHA

  68,736

  74,377

  72,180

  0

  0

  South Cheshire DHA

  0

  0

  0

  222,201

  235,789

  Stockport DHA

  83,351

  86,237

  81,739

  90,435

  95,371

  Tameside and Glossop DHA

  74,772

  78,365

  78,909

  0

  0

  West Pennine DHA

  0

  0

  0

  170,690

  180,883

  Cheshire FHSA

  24,681

  40,163

  78,335

  97,552

  103,274

  Stockport FHSA

  5,264

  7,245

  18,341

  24,437

  28,955

  Tameside FHSA

  5,286

  7,175

  10,649

  13,515

  19,296

  The table lists all the district health authorities and family health services authorities which have been located in the country. Tameside and Glossop DHA and West Pennine DHA also covered part of Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that 24-hour general pharmaceutical provision is made available, in line with, the development of GP out-of-hour services; and if he will make a statement. [36244]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service provides for an emergency supply of drugs to be available at any time when requested by a doctor. Health authorities are also free to make arrangements to provide a 24-hour pharmaceutical service to meet a local need.

  Behavioural Psychotherapy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) research he has commissioned and (b) funding he has provided in respect of the advice given during an initial screening for behavioural psychotherapy; and if he will make a statement. [37131]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Such advice is a matter for the relevant professional staff.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to promote new initiatives to reduce current levels of alcohol abuse with particular reference to(a) domestic violence and (b) heavy drinking among young people and children; and if he will make a statement. [37129]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are currently working with the Health Education Authority to develop new health education messages based on the recommendations in our report "Sensible Drinking (1995)". This will include specific advice to the parents and carers of young people who drink alcohol and to the 16 to 24 age group. We will also be placing more emphasis than in the past on avoiding episodes of intoxication in view of the relationship between drunkenness and short-term harm, such as incidents of domestic violence.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to general practitioners by his Department on the side effects of Lariam as an anti-malarial prophylaxis. [36871]

  Mr. Horam
  General practitioners are informed of the side effects of mefloquine—Lariam—through the manufacturer's data sheet which is approved by the Licensing Authority and made available to doctors. In addition the "British National Formulary" provides information on adverse effects of mefloquine. The Department of Health pays for the formulary to be sent to general practitioners twice a year. Information on mefloquine was circulated to all doctors in the chief medical officer's update 10 in May 1996, and is contained in the book "Health Information for Overseas Travel", a copy of which has been sent to every general practitioner.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Medical Advisory Service for Travellers abroad to publish the results of its trials on the effects of Lariam on tourists. [36873]

  Mr. Horam
  We are aware of the studies being conducted by the medical advisory service for travellers abroad on mefloquine, Lariam. MASTA is an independent organisation and the responsibility for publication of the results of the studies lies with it.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Malaria Advisory Committee to publish its revised guidelines for the use of Lariam as an anti-malarial prophylaxis; and if the guidelines will be circulated to general practitioners and travel centres. [36875]
  492
  Mr. Horam
  The revised guidelines from the malaria reference laboratory for malaria prophylaxis for travellers from the United Kingdom are still being developed. No publication date has yet been set, but it is hoped that they will be published, as previous guidelines have, in a suitable journal with a wide circulation. Their publication will be brought to the attention of all doctors.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what requests he has received from the Isle of Wight council for the provision of health care in conjunction with the request for independence. [36920]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no requests from the Isle of Wight council for the provision of health care in conjunction with any request for independence.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage of patients in England who are covered by general practitioner fundholders. [37061]

  Mr. Malone
  Fifty-two per cent. of the population of England is currently registered with a general practitioner fundholder.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 21, what actions the Government have taken to encourage (a) research and (b) best treatment for those haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products. [37081]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 July. An additional £1 million has been made available by the Department's research and development division to fund research into improving our understanding to the prevalence, transmission and natural history of hepatitis C virus infection.

  The national health service standing group on health technology has identified the evaluation of the use of alpha interferon in the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection as a top priority for research. This is being actively taken forward by the Medical Research Council. A trial development group has met with researchers to help them in the design of a clinical trial. It is intended that patients with haemophilia will be invited to enter the trial. The Medical Research Council is also funding a three-year study to investigate the course and complications of hepatitis C virus-induced liver disease in a group of infected haemophilia patients.

  In addition, the Department is giving grant support to voluntary organisations working with those infected with hepatitis C.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the infant mortality rate in each country in the EU; and what assessment he has made of the factors underlying variations. [36889]
  493
  Mr. Horam
  The table supplies details of the infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. The causes of health variations are complex. They are associated with a range of often interacting factors, including geography, socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, life style and environment.

  Infant mortality rate in European Union countries, circa 1993

  Country

  Year

  Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births

  United Kingdom

  11992

  6.58

  Austria

  1994

  6.25

  Belgium

  1989

  8.53

  Denmark

  1993

  5.40

  Finland

  1993

  4.40

  France

  1992

  6.82

  Germany

  1994

  5.08

  Greece

  1993

  8.30

  Ireland

  1992

  6.67

  Italy

  1991

  8.22

  Luxembourg

  1993

  5.23

  Netherlands

  1993

  6.29

  Portugal

  1993

  8.73

  Spain

  1992

  7.05

  Sweden

  1992

  5.19

  Source:

  World Health Organisation European Office 'Health for All' database.

  Note:

  1 More up to date figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate that the infant mortality rate in England and Wales in 1995 was 6.1 per 1,000 live births.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of staff in his Department and NHS executive are from ethnic minorities,(a) in total and (b) by grade. [37138]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The information requested for the Department and national health service executive is as shown in the table. It does not include data on staff in the NHS executive regional offices. The regional offices were created on 1 April 1996 and full regional office data are not yet included in the Department's information system.

  Percentage breakdown of staff by grade and ethnicity for Department of Health (excluding agencies) as at 12 July 1996

  Grade

  Ethnic minority staff (percentage)

  UG1

  0

  UG2

  0

  UG3

  0

  UG4

  4.1

  UG5

  2.3

  UG6

  5.3

  UG7

  3.5

  SEO

  4.1

  HEO

  6.7

  EO

  18.0

  AO

  25.4

  AA

  40.8

  Total

  13.5

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average life span for(a) males and (b) females in each country in the EU; and what assessment he has made of the factors underlying variations. [36890]

  Mr. Horam
  The table supplies details of the average expectation of life at birth for males and females in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. The causes of health variations are complex. They are associated with a range of often interacting factors, including geography, socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, life style and environment.

  Expectation of life at birth in European Union countries, circa 1993

  Expectation of life at birth (years)

  Country

  Year

  Males

  Females

  United Kingdom

  11992

  73.6

  79.1

  Austria

  1994

  73.4

  79.9

  Belgium

  1989

  72.3

  79.1

  Denmark

  1993

  72.7

  77.9

  Finland

  1993

  72.1

  79.6

  France

  1992

  73.8

  82.3

  Germany

  1994

  73.1

  79.7

  Greece

  1993

  75.0

  80.4

  Ireland

  1992

  72.6

  78.2

  Italy

  1991

  73.7

  80.5

  Luxembourg

  1993

  72.4

  79.3

  Netherlands

  1993

  74.0

  80.1

  Portugal

  1993

  70.6

  77.9

  Spain

  1992

  73.8

  81.3

  Sweden

  1992

  75.5

  81.1

  Source:

  World Health Organisation European Office 'Health for All' database.

  Note:

  1 More up to date figures from the Government Actuary's Department indicate an average expectation of life in the United Kingdom in 1994 of 74.2 years for men and 79.4 years for women.

  Abortion
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the North Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) age of the woman, (b) marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [37006]

  Mr. Horam
  Statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The information is based on all legal terminations in the North Thames region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variable listed were:

  age of the woman: 20 to 24 age group comprised 29.3 per cent—10,449—of all terminations;

  material status of the woman: single women comprised 67.3 per cent.—23.963—of all terminations;

  number of previous children of the women: women with no previous live and still born children comprised 55.6 per cent.—19,808—of all terminations; and

  495

  grounds under which the abortion is performed: statutory ground C alone comprised 92.3 per cent.—32.869—of all terminations. Ground C is defined as meaning that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the North Thames region after the 24 week of pregnancy in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) age of the woman, (b) marital status of the woman, (c) number of previous children of the woman and (d) grounds under which the abortion is performed. [37005]

  Mr. Horam
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The information is based on all legal terminations in the North Thames region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables listed were:

  age of the woman: 30 to 34 age group comprised 31.5 per cent.—6—of all post-24th week terminations;

  marital status of the woman: married women comprised 79 per cent.—15—of all post-24th week terminations;

  number of previous children of the women: women with no previous live and still born children comprised 47.4 per cent.—9—of all post-24th week gestation terminations; and

  grounds under which the abortion is performed: statutory ground E accounted for all the cases—19—of post-24th week terminations. Ground E means that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the Northern and Yorkshire region in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [36931]

  Mr. Horam
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations in the Northern and Yorkshire region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables were:

  age of the woman: 20 to 24 age group comprised 30.3 per cent.—4,953— of all terminations;

  marital status of the woman: single women comprised 65.3 per cent.—10,685—of all terminations;

  number of previous children of the woman: women with no previous live and still born children comprised 50.2 per cent.—8,203—of all terminations; and

  legal grounds under which the abortion is performed: statutory ground C alone comprised 87.3 per cent.—14,274—of all terminations. Ground C is defined as meaning that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  496
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the Northern and Yorkshire region after the 24 week of pregnancy in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [36932]

  Mr. Horam
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations in the Northern and Yorkshire region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables were:

  age of the woman: 25 to 29 age group comprised 100 per cent.—2—of all post-24th week terminations:

  marital status of the woman: married women comprised 100 per cent.—2—of all post-24th week terminations;

  number of previous children of the woman: women with two or more previous live and stillborn children comprised 100 per cent.—2—of all post-24th week gestation terminations; and

  grounds under which the abortion is performed: statutory ground E accounted for all the cases—2—of post-24th week terminations. Ground E is defined as meaning that there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Leucodystrophies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into a national case note review of unclassified leucodystrophies and leucoencephalopathies; and if he will make a statement. [37185]

  Mr. Horam
  None. Information on research commissioned by the Department of Health is contained in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce a national breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 years; and if he will make a statement. [37198]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 4 December 1995 at columns 38–39.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to meet the commitments set out in his letter of 20 November 1995 to the Association of
  497
  Community Health Councils in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [371791

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are committed to an accessible, high quality national health service general dental service. We will continue to take the action necessary to meet that commitment.

  Mental Health Services (Sheffield)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on community mental health services in Sheffield. [36061]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are responsible for ensuring that a comprehensive range of services is provided to meet the health needs of their local population within available resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Sheffield health authority for details of community mental health services in Sheffield.

  In-patient Operations (Costs)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of a NHS in-patient operation; how many were performed in the last year and five years ago; and if he will make a statement. [36064]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 3,556,048 ordinary admissions—that is, excluding day cases—in all specialties in England, where an operation was recorded, compared with 3,349,095 in 1990–91.

  We do not collect information on the average cost of an operation.

  Cardiac Rehabilitation Units
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the development of cardiac rehabilitation units. [36659]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to identify cardiac rehabilitation needs, and for providers of health care to meet those needs within available resources. The Department of Health is providing funding to the British Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation and will continue to encourage the development of the service.

  Radiological Emergencies (Planning)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Prime Minister's letter of 8 January, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what consideration he has given to evidence regarding stable iodine prophylaxis, in relation to United Kingdom health service planning for radiological emergencies. [36644]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 March at column 487.

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Consultant Posts)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consulting posts in obstetrics and gynaecology were unfilled at the latest date for which figures are available; [36943]
  498
  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of consultancy posts in obstetrics and gynaecology which have remained unfilled for a period of three months;[36944]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of consultancy posts in obstetrics and gynaecology which have been vacant for a period of (a) six months and (b) between six and 12 months. [36945]

  Mr. Malone
  In September 1994, there were 23 vacant consultant posts in obstetrics and gynaecology. Information is not available centrally on the period for which posts are vacant.

  Information for September 1995 will be available shortly.

  Local Community Care Charters
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities have published local community care charters. [37604]

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that almost all the local authorities in England have published their own local charters.

  NHS Advertising
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 237, on advertising costs, if he will publish such information as is available. [37698]

  Mr. Malone
  No data are available which separately identify advertising expenditure. The available data include information about a range of expenditure such as recruitment advertising, health promotion initiatives and measures to improve local accountability such as the production of annual reports and information about services.

  The information available is as follows:

  Expenditure which includes advertising by health authorities and NHS trusts in England by region

  Region

  1993–94 £

  1992–93 £

  1991–92 £

  1990–91 £

  Northern

  1,536,557

  1,308,722

  1,399,551

  1,323,781

  Yorkshire

  1,686,291

  1,854,389

  1,546,213

  1,859,669

  Trent

  2,704,686

  2,293,997

  2,085,979

  2,216,819

  East Anglian

  1,172,152

  1,036,682

  907,766

  1,025,380

  North-west Thames

  2,498,796

  2,194,458

  2,207,702

  2,486,098

  North-east Thames

  2,455,868

  2,490,538

  2,621,400

  3,221,808

  South-east Thames

  2,337,759

  2,420,354

  2,031,840

  2,274,056

  South-west Thames

  ,833,519

  1,653,714

  1,867,469

  2,328,691

  Wessex

  1,270,588

  1,201,590

  1,070,856

  1,334,230

  Oxford

  1,666,571

  1,611,181

  1,363,725

  1,811,388

  South Western

  1,674,348

  1,416,404

  1,509,019

  1,495,296

  West Midlands

  2,110,235

  2,273,185

  2,271,774

  2,788,696

  Mersey

  1,016,055

  974,966

  868,299

  881,187

  North Western

  1,469,480

  1,306,521

  1,504,003

  1,761,767

  Special health authorities

  633,838

  633,378

  735,386

  784,834

  Total England

  26,066,743

  24,670,079

  23,990,982

  27,593,700

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts, 1991–92 to 1993–94.

  2. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1991–92 to 1993–94.

  The annual accounts of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals 1990–91.
  499

  Expenditure which includes advertising by health authorities and NHS trusts in England by region

  1994–95 £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,597,713

  Trent

  3,327,513

  Anglia and Oxford

  4,263,608

  North Thames

  8,214,511

  South Thames

  6,398,960

  South and West

  4,070,058

  West Midlands

  3,706,907

  North Western

  3,310,769

  Special health authorities

  135,606

  Total England

  37,025,645

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  2. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Consultancy Index
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of(a) adverse reports from employers made to his Department's consultancy index for each year since 1979 and (b) notifications from the police for convictions for each year since 1979. [36707]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United Kingdom since 1990 in the age groups(a) 20 to 30 years and (b) 30 to 45 years. [35858]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data are not available for the age groups requested. However, the numbers of registrations of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United Kingdom in 1990, the latest year for which data are available, in the standard age groups (a) 20 to 29 years and (b) 30 to 44 years are as follows:

  Age groups

  Number of registrations1

  20–29

  166

  30–44

  609

  1 Provisional.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the costs of extending the child care disregard to claimants of income support in each of the cases where(a) one child in the family is aged under 11 years and (b) the disregard is applicable to (i) each child aged under 11 years, (ii) one child in the family under five years, (iii) each child aged under five years, (iv) one child in respect of whom a
  500
  disabled child's premium is payable, (v) each child in respect of whom a disabled child's premium is payable and (vi) each child in a family irrespective of age; [34237]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost to public funds of ignoring (a) travel-to-work expenses and (b) reasonable child care expenses from earnings before the earnings disregard is applied to (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit and (iii) council tax benefit; and how many people would gain from these changes. [34230]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of ignoring travel to work costs before the earnings disregard is applied in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, and the numbers who would gain from this is set out in the table.

  Costs are estimated using the 1994 quarterly statistical enquiry and the 1991, 1992, 1993 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1996–97 levels. Information on travel-to-work costs is taken from the 1994–95 family resources survey. This data should be interpreted with caution, as no figures are collected directly on costs of running cars or motorcycles. Instead, costs are estimated using mileage rates—42p per mile for cars and 9p per mile for motorcycles. Outlying cases have been ignored.

  Cost of disregarding travel to work costs

  Costs £ million

  Gainers

  Income Support

  15

  40,000

  Housing Benefit

  75

  170,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  25

  180,000

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million, gainers to the nearest 10,000. Estimates are very general as they are based on information on average travel-to-work expenses for benefit recipients.

  2. Figures for income support include the cost of jobseeker's allowance from October 1996.

  3. Behavioural effects have not been measured.

  The costs of registered child care of up to £60 a week for families with at least one child aged under 11 are already disregarded in housing benefit and council tax benefit as well as in family credit and disability working allowance. Income support is not an in-work benefit. The number of income support recipients who pay for registered child care is extremely small and the cost, subject to any behavioural effects, of disregarding such expenses is negligible.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has saved through reducing social security fraud in the last year; and what are the estimates for the forthcoming year. [35481]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1995–96 the Benefits Agency saved an estimated £715.6 million through detection and prevention of fraud against a target of £680 million. This figure excludes the estimated savings achieved through the security and control programme, which have yet to be finalised.

  The target for social security fraud savings during 1996–97 is £1.5 billion. This includes savings from the merged Benefits Agency, Employment Service

  501
  investigation service, organised fraud investigation and security initiatives within the security and control programme.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for each of the years since the office was opened the total revenue collected by the Child Support Agency office in Dudley; [36332]

  (2) if he will list the number of (a) permanent and (b) casual or temporary staff employed by the Child Support Agency office in Dudley in each year since the office was opened; [36330]

  (3) if he will list the total number of claims received by the Child Support Agency office in Dudley in each year since the office was opened; [36329]

  (4) if he will list for each of the years since the office was opened the total running cost budget for the Child Support Agency office in Dudley; [36333]

  (5) if he will list the average response time in respect of (a) written inquiries and (b) telephone inquiries for the Child Support Agency office in Dudley. [36331]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 12 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Dudley Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC).
  The staffing figures you have requested for Dudley CSAC are shown in table 1 of the attached set of tables.
  It is not possible to provide figures for the total number of claims received in the precise form requested. This is because since the Agency commenced operations, there has been a change in responsibility for initial maintenance assessment work from the CSACs to the Field offices, and changes to the geographical boundaries of responsibility of Dudley CSAC. Approximate figures showing the number of maintenance applications received by the Dudley CSAC for the first three years of operation are shown in table 2.
  The Agency does not collect information on average response times to telephone calls or written correspondence. The statistical data collected in this area is gathered to monitor performance against Agency Charter Standards. The charter standards are: to respond to 80% of telephone calls within 20 seconds and to respond to written enquiries within 10 working days. Available information is shown in table 3.
  The available information on the total running costs of the Dudley Centre, and child maintenance payments collected by the Centre or arranged by them for direct payment between the parents concerned are shown in table 4. Running costs are made up of Staff costs and Non-Staff costs. The maintenance collected figure includes cash receipts and Benefit Agency deductions. Figures on the amount of maintenance arranged were not collated in the first year of the Agency. During 1994/95, £111 million of maintenance was arranged by the Agency. It is not possible to break this figure down into the amounts contributed by each individual Centre, but a proportionate share is attributable to the Dudley Centre. In 1995/96 a scan of the Child Support Computer System was able to identify maintenance arranged by individual CSAC and this figure is shown.
  I hope this is helpful.
  502

  Table 1: Breakdown of staff at Dudley CSAC

  Permanent

  Casuals1

  Fixed term contracts1

  Total

  At 31 March 1994

  734

  86

  30

  850

  At 31 March 1995

  760.24

  20

  1

  784.24

  At 31 March 1996

  699.05

  0

  1

  700.05

  1 Casuals are temporary appointments usually for a maximum of 12 months or exceptionally 24 months. Fixed term appointments are for a period of between 1 and 5 years.

  Table 2: Maintenance applications received at Dudley CSAC

  Year end

  Approximate numbers only

  31 March 1994

  110,000

  31 March 1995

  58,000

  31 March 1996

  63,000

  Table 3: Response times to telephone calls and written enquiries at Dudley CSAC

  Year end

  Telephone calls answered within 20 seconds (Per cent.)

  Written enquiries answered within 10 days (Per cent.)

  31 March 1994

  Not available

  Not available

  31 March 19951

  37

  35

  31 March 1996

  22

  44

  1 Figures only became available from September 1994.

  Table 4: Running cost and maintenance collected and arranged by Dudley CSAC

  Millions

  Year end

  Running costs

  Maintenance collected

  Maintenance arranged

  31 March 1994

  9.8

  28

  Not available

  31 March 1995

  13.3

  15.3

  Not available

  31 March 1996

  13.7

  24.3

  124.8

  1 Figures only became available from April 1995.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if representatives of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar are attending, or have been asked to attend meetings with representatives of(a) the Child Support Agency, the DSS and (b) the Information Technology Services Agency to discuss major upgrading or replacement of the current EDS Ltd. child support computer system. [36174]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 12 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, I have regular meetings with the Data Protection Registrar. These meetings address all data Protection issues relating to the Agency, including any proposed changes to the Child Support Computer System.
  I hope this is helpful.
  503
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the Child Support Agency's policy on retaining data about clients on the child support computer system after those clients' cases have been officially closed; [36184]

  (2) what operational reasons the Child Support Agency has to retain data about clients on the child support computer system after those clients' cases have been officially closed; [36182]

  (3) in what circumstances Child Support Agency staff may access archived data in respect of discontinued or closed data; [36185]

  (4) what legislative requirement there is for the Child Support Agency to retain data about clients on the child support computer system after those clients' cases have been officially closed; [36181]

  (5) how long the Child Support Agency normally retains data about clients on the child support computer system after the client's case has been officially closed; [36183]

  (6) if the CSA deletes data about clients from the child support computer system once the clients' cases have been closed; [36232]

  (7) if he will indicate the difference between CSA classifications of suspended, cleared without assessment and closed; [36233]

  (8) what definition of archived is used by the CSA; [36234]

  (9) how many of the cases so far taken on by the CSA are now officially closed; [36235]

  (10) in how many of those cases that have been officially closed by the CSA, data are still held on the child support computer system. [36236]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 12 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System (CSCS) and the cases held on it.
  It is best to start by defining some of the terms you have used or asked about.
  Closed cases: Cases where no further action is to be taken by the Agency unless or until a repeat Child Maintenance claim is made. Typical reasons include reconciliation of the absent part and the parent with care where no maintenance payments are outstanding; paternity not established; death of one of the parties; benefit claim ended by the parent with care; or the withdrawal of an application by a private client. No action will occur automatically on cases that are closed, except for weeding and archiving of data.
  Cases suspended: A term used when action on assessing maintenance has to stop temporarily until a particular issue is resolved, for example, a dispute over paternity or where the whereabouts of an absent parent cannot be traced. In other circumstances a case may be ready to be closed completely but some accounting action is still required; it will therefore remain open for this action to be taken but no assessment action can be carried out on it.
  Cases cleared without assessment: As for "closed", but in circumstances where an initial assessment was never made, for example a decision that there is no prima facie evidence which might
  504
  lead to the establishment of paternity; the Agency has no jurisdiction; or the prompt withdrawal of a claim to benefit by the parent with care.
  Weeding: Weeding is the deletion of particular items of data under specified rules from the Child Support Computer System. This data cannot be retrieved.
  Archiving: Archiving is the transfer of particular items of data under specified rules from the online system to a separate storage medium. The data is transferred to disk and if needed can be printed out on paper (a hard copy), but can never be retrieved back on to the CSCS. The facility to access archived material is restricted to staff with the appropriate security profiles. There are a total of 76 security profiles for access to information; only 16 profiles have access to archived information.
  There is no legislative requirement for the Agency to retain data after cases are closed. Operationally it is sensible to maintain a record of previous dealings with the Agency for an optimum length of time. Given that a claim may need to be re-opened up to the point where any qualifying child involved reaches the age of 19, this is going to be for a period of years, not months or weeks. There is also the issue of the sensitive nature of some of the information, for example, where paternity has been disputed, or a DNA test has been carried out, or the Agency has accepted "Good Cause" for not pursuing a case. It is in the best interests of clients to keep these records for quite some time to avoid the need to go over the same ground again in the future. We also need to ensure our records contribute properly to the prevention of Social Security fraud and abuse.
  We have yet to decide for how long records will be kept, but after 3 years of operations it is already clear that significant numbers of repeat child maintenance applications are going to be made on closed cases. We must strike the balance between our business needs, general DSS requirements, Data Protection legislation and the needs and best interests of our clients.
  There are approximately 650,000 closed cases on the computer system at the moment. At present all closed cases are retained, but a programme to introduce weeding and archiving of data has begun. This process leaves a basic record on the system to show that there has been contact with the person concerned, but the details are archived and will not be accessible through the system.
  In the event that the Agency recommences dealings with a client whose details are archived, authorised users can request a hard copy of the archived data to ensure that all relevant information is available and the client is not being asked unnecessarily to provide the same details a second time.
  I hope all this is helpful.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would be the costs of modifying the original Child Support Agency computer system to accommodate the proposed departures system and other regulatory changes; [36176]

  (2) what is the forecast cost of replacing the existing child support computer system to accommodate the proposed departures system and other regulatory changes. [36177]

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if representatives of the office of the Data Protection Registrar(a) have been invited to meet or (b) have met representatives of (i) the Child Support Agency, (ii) the Department of Social Security and (iii) the Information Technology Services Agency to discuss major upgrading or replacement of the current child support computer system. [36862]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  505
  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 12 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  The existing Child Support Computer system (CSCS) has been upgraded to incorporate the new functions associated with the Departures scheme. The enhancements were supplied by the existing CSCS supplier, EDS, working as part of a joint development team of Child Support Agency, Information Technology Services Agency and EDS staff.
  The implications of other regulatory changes on the CSCS will continue to be considered as part of the impact analysis process when details of such changes emerge. Any further development or upgrade of CSCS that is considered necessary following analysis will be incorporated in the ongoing programme of system amendments. It is supported by existing system development contracts with a number of external suppliers.
  The costs of the upgrades and enhancements are "commercial in confidence".
  The possibility of wholly replacing the existing Child Support Computer System to accommodate the departures system and other regulatory changes was not considered as either necessary or a practical solution. Therefore the extensive work needed to provide a forecast cost for this activity has not been commissioned.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claimants of(a) incapacity benefits, (b) disability living allowance, (c) attendance allowance and (d) disability working allowance in (i) Crewe and Nantwich and (ii) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36345]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of claimants of (a) Incapacity Benefits, (b) Disability Living Allowance, (c) Attendance Allowance and (d) Disability Working Allowance in (i) Crewe and Nantwich and (ii) Cheshire for each of the last five years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in Annex A, B and C.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  Incapacity Benefit (IB)
  Statistical data for IB claims is collated at District level, the boundaries of which do not correspond with constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas.
  South Cheshire District includes the BA's offices of Chester, Crewe (which covers Nantwich), Ellesmere Port and Northwich. Figures for this District are shown in the following list:

  1991–1992: 19,675

  1992–1993: 22,334

  1993–1994: 23,756

  1994–1995: 25,552

  1995–1996: 26,929

  Cheshire covers the following BA Districts South Cheshire, Sale and East Cheshire, North Cheshire, Stockport and Tameside District Offices. Figures for these Districts are shown in the following list:
  506

  1991–1992: 73,389

  1992–1993: 83,574

  1993–1994: 90,926

  1994–1995: 97,258

  1995–1996: 101,040

  All figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Annex B

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
  The figures for DLA are rounded to the nearest hundred and are only available for the latest four years. This is because the data for 1992 would not be reliable due to the conversion of existing Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance data onto the new DLA computer system. The figures refer to successful claims only. The totals of unsuccessful claims are not available.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Crewe and Nantwich

  2,000

  2,100

  2,600

  2,900

  Cheshire

  23,700

  25,600

  29,900

  33,200

  Figures as at 31 May each year.

  Attendance Allowance (AA)
  The figures for AA are rounded to the nearest hundred and are only available for the latest two years only due to incomplete post code information held on system prior to this date. The figures refer to successful claims only. The totals of unsuccessful claims are not available.

  1995

  1996

  Crewe and Nantwich

  2,400

  2,400

  Cheshire

  19,200

  18,900

  1995 figures at 30 November 1995 due to data problems associated with on-line conversion to the computer system.

  1996 figures as at 31 May 1996.

  All figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Annex C

  Disability Working Allowance (DWA)
  Statistical data for DWA claims is collated at BA office level, the boundaries of which do not correspond with constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas.
  The following figures refer to successful claims only. The totals of unsuccessful claims are not available. The figures are given in the form of cumulative successful claims since 1992:

  Crewe BA office: 37

  Cheshire: 281

  The BA office at Crewe covers Nantwich.

  Cheshire includes details for the following local offices: Chester, Crewe, Ellesmere Port, Hyde, Macclesfield, Manchester/Sale, Northwich, Stockport North, Stockport South, Warrington, Widnes and Wilmslow.

  All figures given are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of applications for social fund loans in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36337]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  507
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of applicants for Social Fund loans in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. With the creation of the Benefits Agency (BA) in April 1991, former departmental local offices were grouped into Districts. Statistical data for SF loans is only collected at District level, the boundaries of which are not the same. Therefore, the information is not available exclusively for Crewe, Nantwich or Cheshire.
  Crewe and Nantwich form part of South Cheshire District, which also has offices at Chester, Ellesmere Port and Northwich. The attached Annex gives information for this District and also for the Districts of Sale & East Cheshire, North Cheshire, Stockport and Tameside which between them cover the rest of the Cheshire area.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex: Loan applications for period 1991–92 to 1995–96

  District

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  North Cheshire

  14,511

  17,200

  18,725

  20,968

  21,526

  Sale and East Cheshire

  5,699

  7,250

  7,826

  8,900

  10,534

  South Cheshire

  17,633

  20,215

  21,758

  19,913

  19,006

  Stockport

  9,906

  11,201

  12,954

  11,591

  11,236

  Tameside

  10,085

  12,486

  12,618

  13,201

  13,041

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. Sale and East Cheshire District has offices at Sale, Macclesfield and Wilmslow; North Cheshire District has offices at Warrington and Widnes; Stockport District has offices at Stockport and Buxton; and Tameside District has offices at Hyde and Ashton under Lyne.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claimants for income support in(a) Crew and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36334]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of claimants for Income Support in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years.
  The information is not available in the format requested as the Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics by BA District Offices. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or this specific geographical area.
  The information available is shown on the attached table and relates to the actual number of Income Support claims received for the financial years 1991–92 to 1995–96. Not all claims received will have resulted in an award of benefit.
  South Cheshire District includes the BA's offices of Cheshire, Crewe (which covers Nantwich), Ellesmere Port and Northwich. The data for Cheshire includes the Tameside and Stockport Districts. These Districts include areas which are outside Cheshire.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Actual number of income support claims

  Financial years

  South Cheshire district1

  Cheshire2

  1991–92

  34,749

  127,667

  1992–93

  33,310

  123,993

  508

  Actual number of income support claims

  Financial years

  South Cheshire district1

  Cheshire2

  1993–94

  31,032

  116,227

  1994–95

  31,873

  116,553

  1995–96

  30,558

  111,296

  1 South Cheshire District includes the offices of Chester, Crewe (which covers Nantwich), Ellesmere Port and Northwich.

  2 Cheshire consists of the BA Districts of South Cheshire, Sale and East Cheshire (which includes the offices of Sale, Macclesfield and Wilmslow), North Cheshire (which includes the offices of Warrington and Widnes), Stockport (which includes the offices of Stockport and Buxton) and Tameside (which includes the offices of Hyde and Ashton).

  The data, which has been provided by the BA's Central Data Unit, is provisional and may be subject to change.

  Not all claims will have resulted in an award of benefit.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time that clients in Benefits Agency offices have to wait in the office to obtain an interview. [36167]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the average length of time that clients in Benefits Agency (BA) offices have to wait in the office to obtain an interview.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency does not specifically monitor the length of time customers have to wait to obtain an interview.
  The BA commissions independent customer research and the National Customer Survey provides an independent assessment of customer perception of, and satisfaction with, the service they have received from the BA during the previous year. The 1995 results show that the average waiting time for the majority of customers is 15 minutes.
  The BA Customer Charter sets the standard that customers should be seen by the receptionist within 10 minutes (or 30 minutes at exceptionally busy times). Initial waiting times have been monitored independently and results for October 1994 to September 1995, the latest figures available, show that customers are seen, on average, within 11 minutes.
  The Charter, including the standard on caller waiting times is displayed in local office reception areas and local managers have the overall responsibility for ensuring that customers are seen within that standard.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) full-time doctors, (b) part-time doctors and (c) civil servants are expected to be employed by the successful bidders for the Benefits Agency medical service; [36912]

  (2) how many (a) adjudication officers and (b) clerical officers are expected to (i) be relocated within the Benefits Agency, (ii) be employed by the contractor and (iii) be made redundant, as a result of the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical service. [36900]
  509
  Mr. Burt
  During the course of the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical service, all permanent administrative civil servants will have to indicate whether they wish to transfer to the private sector or wish to be redeployed within the Department of Social Security. This options exercise is due to take place towards the end of the year, and until the results are known it is impossible to give definitive numbers of staff who will be either redeployed, relocated or transferred to the private sector.

  All doctors, whether full or part-time, and all administrative staff employed on a casual basis or on fixed-term appointments, are expected to transfer to the successful bidder or bidders.

  No staff will be made redundant as a result of the contractorisation.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance indicators are to be included in the tender for the Benefits Agency medical service. [36906]

  Mr. Burt
  Targets and performance indicators for the private sector contractors have not yet been specified.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the successful contractor for the Benefits Agency medical service will be responsible for(a) employing doctors on a full-time basis and (b) paying a fee to part-time doctors; and what is the expected administration cost in each case. [36909]

  Mr. Burt
  It is expected that the successful contractor or contractors will be responsible for employing full and part-time doctors. It is not possible to detail any future administrative costs, but experience of similar exercises within the Department has identified that efficiencies will be gained in all cost areas of the contract or contracts.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical service includes(a) medical advice and scrutiny, (b) contact with general practitioners for further information about a claimant, (c) medical assessment and examination, (d) disablement questions currently assessed by adjudicating medical authorities and (e) assessment of war pensions. [36901]

  Mr. Burt
  The current scope of the undertaking to contractorise the Benefits Agency medical service includes medical advice and scrutiny, contact with general practitioners for further information about a claimant, medical assessment and examination, but does not include disablement questions currently assessed by adjudicating medical authorities, or assessment of war pensions.

  Benefit expenditure and planned benefit expenditure from 1988–89 to 1998–99

  Cash prices (£ million)

  Benefit

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Unemployment benefit

  1,107

  733

  870

  1,604

  1,760

  1,652

  1,279

  1,096

  —

  —

  —

  Income support

  3,041

  2,631

  2,940

  4,200

  5,379

  5,737

  5,183

  5,088

  —

  —

  —

  Jobseeker's allowance—contributory based

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,011

  652

  662

  Jobseeker's allowance—income based

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,670

  4,900

  4,956

  Social fund

  40

  25

  24

  30

  31

  48

  44

  51

  46

  47

  46

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit

  1,211

  1,127

  1,489

  1,744

  2,187

  2,332

  2,640

  2,794

  2,892

  3,035

  3,227

  Total

  5,399

  4,516

  5,323

  7,578

  9,357

  9,769

  9,146

  9,029

  8,618

  8,634

  8,892

  Benefits Agency Freeline
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Disablement Income Group in regard to the planned closure of the Benefits Agency freeline; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [35516]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what representations he has received from the Disablement Income Group in regard to the planned closure of the Benefits Agency Freeline; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.
  The BA has received two letters from the Disablement Income Group (DIG) concerning the closure of the BA Freeline, one of which was addressed to the Secretary of State for Social Security and passed to me for reply. I have replied to a letter dated 27 June a copy of which is attached. The second letter was received from DIG in Scotland and has been passed to the Director of Operations with responsibility for Scotland, Mr John Lutton for reply.
  The Benefit Enquiry Line for people with disabilities is not affected by the decision to close Freeline. The BA recognises that people with disabilities have special needs and may have difficulties contacting their local office.
  The closure of Freeline will allow resources to be refocused so that the customer is in touch with the staff who administer their claims or who can directly link the benefits available with the specific personal details of the customer.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the DSS freeline service. [37407]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 21 June,Official Report, column 629.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual cost in the payment of unemployment benefit for each year since 1989, adjusted for inflation; and what is the predicted figure for the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. [36925]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.
  511

  Benefit expenditure and planned benefit expenditure from 1988–89 to 1998–99

  Real terms (1996–97 prices) (£ million)

  Benefit

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Unemployment benefit

  1,565

  970

  1,065

  1,848

  1,948

  1,777

  1,350

  1,126

  —

  —

  —

  Income support

  4,302

  3,478

  3,599

  4,838

  5,955

  6,171

  5,472

  5,228

  —

  —

  —

  Jobseeker's allowance—contributory based

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,011

  636

  632

  Jobseeker's allowance—income based

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,670

  4,781

  4,729

  Social fund

  57

  33

  29

  34

  34

  52

  46

  52

  46

  45

  44

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit

  1,713

  1,490

  1,822

  2,009

  2,421

  2,508

  2,787

  2,870

  2,892

  2,961

  3,079

  Total

  7,637

  5,971

  6,515

  8,730

  10,358

  10,508

  9,656

  9,277

  8,618

  8,423

  8,484

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of industrial injuries benefit paid to recipients after retirement age. [37405]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans to change existing arrangements. Industrial injuries benefits are paid to recipients over pensionable age.

  Executive Agencies
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make available the 1995–96 annual reports and accounts for each of his next steps agencies. [37871]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today laid before Parliament the 1995–96 annual reports and accounts for the Benefits, Child Support, Contributions, Information Technology Services and War Pensions Agencies. Copies of these, and the Resettlement Agency's final annual report, have been placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the annual value of housing benefit savings, (b) the proportion of this which he expects local authority social services departments to replace and (c) the number of claimants affected by the implementation of the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. [34113]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: The intention behind the proposed amending legislation was to confirm the policy intention, and the effect of existing housing benefit case law, regarding the extent to which housing benefit should meet service charges. This would have only clarified, rather than changed, our policy on the inclusion of service charges in the rent paid by housing benefits.

  In reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 8 July, Official Report, column 63, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated that he had withdrawn the proposed Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, pending an interdepartmental review of the funding of supported accommodation. As part of the review, we shall consider the likely effects and the numbers involved had we proceeded with the legislation.
  512
  We originally estimated that the proposal would have affected housing benefit payments in the region of £50 million to some 26,000 people.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calf Brains
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if calf brains are permitted to be used in food produced for human consumption; and if he will make a statement. [32270]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Specified Bovine Material (Number 2) Order 1996, brains from calves over six months of age must be destroyed and so cannot enter the food chain. The brains of calves under six months of age can be sold for human consumption. However, the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984, as amended, do not permit brains from calves under six months to be used except in meat products cooked during manufacture.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what manner the meat, bonemeal and other derivatives of cattle culled due to BSE infection is disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [32406]

  Mrs. Browning
  All BSE suspects are slaughtered on farm and the entire carcase is disposed of by incineration.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the treaty articles of regulations or directives of the European Community which would govern the operation of a fisheries enterprise whose ultimate ownership was in Austria or Luxembourg under the registration and flag of another member state within European Community waters. [37083]

  Mr. Baldry
  Any fishing vessel registered in the United Kingdom would have to comply with the requirements of our merchant shipping legislation, which conforms with the general provisions of the treaty of the European Community. That legislation, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, requires, among other things, that a fishing vessel shall not be registered unless it is managed, and its operations controlled and directed from within the United Kingdom. I cannot comment on the legislation that operates in other member states.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals or representations he has received from interested environmental organisations within the United Kingdom concerning modifications to the existing set-aside arrangements of the European Community which have the object of conserving beneficial wildlife at minimal or no additional cost to the scheme; and what actions he or other Government representatives have taken consequent to their receipt. [37344]

  Mr. Baldry
  Following consultations with fanning and conservation organisations earlier this year, changes to the set-aside rules were announced in April aimed at benefiting wildlife, particularly ground-nesting birds. The principle changes announced were:

  (i) a relaxation in the areas of set-aside which may be left uncut; and

  (ii) from 1997, a ban on cutting set-aside between 15 April and 1 July when a non-selective herbicide has been used, and a ban on cultivating set-aside land before 1 July.

  We have also pressed the European Commission to allow narrower strips of land to count as set-aside to enhance conservation in field margins.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what communications he has had with the Agriculture Commissioner concerning the allegations by Gilbert Castille in respect of the publication of results of scientific research into BSE. [37736]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Commission has made its views on this subject perfectly clear in the press and I see no reason to raise this matter with it. It is an internal matter for the Commission.

  The policy of the British Government has been to be open in publishing research results in relation to BSE and our track record clearly shows that that is precisely what we have done.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources are being devoted by his Department to bio-assay-based research into pre-clinical diagnosis of BSE in cattle. [32325]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: In transmissible spongiform encephalopathy research, bioassays are used to detect infectivity and can therefore be used as a diagnostic test in their own right. They are being used to diagnose pre-clinical infection in experiments where animals have been experimentally challenged with BSE and are probably incubating the disease. Also MAFF has approved a project to develop a transgenic mouse carrying the cattle prior-protein gene which may eventually result in a bio-assay that is more sensitive and faster than existing bio-assays. Such mice may eventually play a role in the development of a pre-clinical bioassay. The support allocated to all these research projects in 1996–97 is £0.7 million.

  Fishery, Weymouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer,Official Report, 9 May 1996 column 361, if he will place in the
  514
  Library a copy of the evidence which suggest that the purification practice operated by a fishery in Weymouth poses an unacceptable risk to human health. [37545]

  Mr. Baldry
  The reasons for the statement in Official Report, column 361 have been outlined in correspondence with the hon. Member, dated 16 and 21 May and 4 July, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Oyster Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during which periods since 1966 extended water re-use systems have been accepted practice for the farming of oysters. [37466]

  Mr. Baldry
  The farming of oysters does not involve the re-use of seawater. The re-use of seawater for shellfish purification for periods extending up to one month has been accepted practice in some UK plants for a number years.

  Tuna
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of the tuna landed by the Cornish driftnet boats in 1995; to which countries this tuna was exported; and what was the cost of surveillance of the albacore tuna driftnet fishery(a) in port and (b) at sea, by United Kingdom and EU authorities. [37747]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1995, UK vessels landed a total of 196 tonnes of albacore tuna with a first sale value of £335,000. Most of the catch was either landed in, or exported to, France.

  The cost to the United Kingdom of surveillance of the 1995 albacore tuna driftnet fishery at sea was approximately £0.6 million. The limited costs incurred in port have not been separately identified. Details of surveillance expenditure by the Commission and other member states are not available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures his Department is taking to prevent the(a) dolphin and (b) other wildlife mortalities recorded in 1995 in Cornish driftnets in the albacore tuna fishery; [37749]

  (2) if his Department is funding observation of the wildlife bycatch in the United Kingdom albacore tuna driftnet fishery in 1996. [37748]

  Mr. Baldry
  Measures are again being taken both in port and at sea to ensure that the drift nets used by UK vessels in the albacore tuna fishery do not exceed the maximum legal length of 2.5 km. The Government have, in addition, encouraged the industry to leave gaps between net panels because skippers have said that these act as "dolphin doors" thereby reducing the dolphin by-catch. We have proposed to the European Commission that the rules be amended so as further to encourage the use of "dolphin doors".

  The Government are funding research into the use of acoustic devices in nets to act as deterrents to marine mammals. They have also made funds available to the sea mammal research unit in the event of it being able to reach agreement with the skippers concerned to conduct further observation work on the wildlife bycatch in the UK albacore tuna drifnet fishery.

  Cattle Slaughter
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the evidence evaluated by this Department underlying his assessment that no risk to human health will be posed by the slaughter of cattle over the age of 30 months in abattoirs which also slaughter cattle for human consumption; and if he will set out the extra precautionary measures which will be put in place. [28326]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statements issued by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee following meetings on 20 and 24 March. These statements included recommendations on the need for deboning of cattle over 30 months in licensed plants supervised by the meat Hygiene Service, and that the trimmings must be classified as specified bovine offal. There was no suggestion that deboned meat from these animals would pose any additional risk to the public. Indeed, the committee concluded that if these measures were carried out, the risk from the eating beef would be likely to be extremely small.

  The Government took immediate action to implement the recommendations made by SEAC on the reclassification of SBO—through the introduction of the Specified Bovine Material Order 1996, which came into effect on 29 March. SEAC's advice for the establishment of specialist deboning plants for meat from animals over 30 months of age were not carried through; instead, in order to restore consumer confidence, the Government went further than the committee's recommendation and prohibited meat from animals over 30 months old from entering the human and animal feed chain.
  516
  The market support measures introduced by the Community under Commission Regulation 716/96 in respect of these animals required complete destruction of animals brought to market over 30 months and imposed detailed rules on the handling and processing of the resulting animal products.

  This regulation imposed far more stringent conditions for the disposal of 30-month cattle than was ever envisaged by SEAC. Nevertheless, the Intervention Board executive agency, which is responsible for the running of the scheme, has taken scrupulous care in ensuring that the scheme rules comply in eveyr respect to the requirements of the regulation.

  For example, scheme animals can be slaughtered only in designated slaughterhouses which have been checked by the state veterinary service to ensure that facilities are adequate to separately slaughter and dispose of animal material from scheme and non-scheme animals. No carcases or other products destined for human consumption can be present on days when scheme animals are being slaughtered and processed, unless sufficient physical barriers are present to ensure complete physical separation. Abbatoirs should accept for slaughter only cattle which can be disposed of to approved Tenderers or incinerators on the day of processing. In addition, staining of SBM and non-SBM is required as an additional precaution to ensure that there is no likelihood of any of this material re-entering the human or animal food chains.

  There are many more rules which have to be followed. These are set out in the IBEA's scheme leaflet which is available on request.

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

The Grenadier Guards: Manpower
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, now stationed in Northern Ireland, is currently 91 men under strength.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards is currently 51 under strength although there are also 25 men currently detached outside Northern Ireland for other duties or training who would return to the regiment if that were operationally necessary. That shortfall in personnel is typical of the manpower shortage affecting all the infantry regiments. We have introduced a number of measures to improve recruiting and retention with the aim of restoring the Army to full manning.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his usual courteous and informative reply. I should perhaps declare an interest in that my son served as a Grenadier, my father served as a Grenadier, my grandfather served as a Grenadier in the 3rd Battalion and my great grandfather also served as a Grenadier. Is my noble friend aware that for one month—four weeks—one company has to be on front-line duty and is brought up to strength by taking men from here and there in the other three companies? Does he agree that that is not a very easy way to run a battalion?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her family's very proud record in the Grenadier Guards, and I am rather sorry that she herself did not have the opportunity to serve in that gallant regiment. The serious point made by my noble friend is well taken. Clearly, shortages in the Grenadier Guards are never welcome, and that applies across the Army as a whole. In the specific case to which she referred, it would be up to the brigade commander to assess whether the shortfall that he faced was significant in operational terms, and he has not in fact said that that is so.
Lord Grimston of Westbury: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us how many of the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards were declared redundant when the battalion was disbanded a short time ago?
Earl Howe: Not without notice, my Lords, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say how many more regiments are under strength? Is it not because of the Government's policy of cut-backs that we have got into that position? Was it not disgraceful that the Ministry of Defence had to ask private soldiers to go out and recruit other soldiers and pay them money to do so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not agree with the emphasis that the noble Lord places on our current incentives to redress the undermanning situation in the Army. I believe that the recruitment and retention bounties that we introduced have been very welcome. Indeed, there are already signs that they are showing results. The noble Lord asked about undermanning elsewhere across the Army. The shortfall is mainly in the Infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery, although all arms are affected to some extent.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me and the Defence Committee in another place that it is of the highest importance for potential recruits to meet service staff in the recruitment offices? In the light of that, are the Government now abandoning, as I hope they are, the practice of using jobcentres, where people can look at the job advertised besides, say, a vacancy for a chamber-person?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I certainly agree with her. But jobcentres have never been seen as the be all and end all of the Army's recruitment difficulties. They provide a useful adjunct to the Army's efforts. Already we are seeing an encouraging level of inquiries coming through to the careers recruitment offices.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the problem a little more simple? When you cannot get people, you pay more.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. That is why we introduced the recruitment and retention incentives. As I said, the results are already looking quite promising.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Strange, I also declare an interest as the father of a serving officer in the Grenadier Guards. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the problem of retention has a great deal to do with overstretch, which in turn is significantly influenced by the amount of time that regiments, in particular the Grenadiers, spend overseas—or, to put it another way, the relatively little time that they spend within the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it cuts both ways. When one talks to most soldiers, they express enthusiasm for working overseas. That is certainly the case with units serving in Bosnia. However, there must be a proper balance between operational duties and training and that is something that we constantly bear in mind.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl announced on Friday in our defence debate that on many occasions women were to be given a fully operational role in the front line of the Armed Forces. I hope the noble Earl and the House will agree that it will be a famous day when the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is allowed to serve in the Grenadier Guards as indeed her ancestors have done with such distinction.
On a more serious note, can the Minister say where the 1,000 troops posted to Northern Ireland came from? From which units are they detached? Are they units? Are those units above strength, below strength or below establishment? What is the case?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure that that supplementary relates to the precise Question on the Order Paper, though I shall try to help the noble Lord in so far as I am able. He touched on the real problem in that if there is undermanning which a brigade commander assesses as significant, other units must be tapped for manpower. That is a regrettable fact of the current situation. I shall write to the noble Lord with the specific details for which he asked.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent places are made open to members of the Territorial Army for short periods in order to make up numbers? It would greatly encourage recruitment in the TA if there were opportunities on occasion to do so.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. It illustrates the truth of the maxim that every cloud has a silver lining. For example, in Bosnia we have been able to call out quite a large number of specialist Territorial Army personnel. They have been delighted to serve in Bosnia and it has meant that we have not had to resort to the kind of measures to which I referred in answering the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Armed Forces: Recruitment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve recruiting to the Armed Forces.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a number of measures are being taken to improve Armed Forces recruitment. Those include targeted recruitment advertising campaigns, payment of a recruiting bounty to marines and soldiers who persuade others to enlist, and the recently launched initiatives with the Employment Service to use the jobcentre network and the careers service to aid recruitment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as was brought out in last week's defence debate, the numbers in all three services have steadily fallen year by year and last year were at their
736
lowest ever? Is he prepared to say what the Government are doing to secure that that trend is drastically reversed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are already small signs that the situation is improving. There was a much better level of recruitment in the final quarter of 1995–96. That continued in the current year. In the first quarter of this year there was a 53 per cent. rise in enlistment compared with the same period last year. Therefore there are signs that the measures we are taking are achieving some results.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the manpower shortage would probably be improved if the Government improved their handling of issues of importance to service families?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we had a long and interesting debate about that issue last week and I made the Government's position clear. We have made considerable efforts to convey to Army families not only the details of our policy, but also the reasons for it. Naturally, it is regrettable that that message has not permeated as far as it should have done. There is no doubt that undermanning is causing difficulties. However, we should not exaggerate the operational effects.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Government's ridiculous and dangerous decision to sell off Ministry of Defence houses acts as an inducement for increasing numbers of people to join the forces?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. Housing will improve in standard as a result of what we plan to do and I should have thought that that would act as an incentive.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that one of the principal reasons for undermanning is the instability and insecurity caused by a series of defence reviews, redundancies and all that goes with that? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to stand by and honour the Prime Minister's pledge that the services should now have a period of peace and stability?
Earl Howe: My Lords, Ministers have repeatedly said that a period of stability is desirable and that is what we aim to achieve. A number of factors have contributed to undermanning, one of the main ones being a false perception among many people that because some servicemen recently faced redundancy the Army no longer offers a worthwhile career. That kind of perception is one that we are trying hard to overcome.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can the Minister say what the career prospects are that are held out to young people joining the Armed Forces? Are they good and

737
positive during their service in the Armed Forces, and are the recruits trained adequately for their return to civilian life?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, touches on some important points. We endeavour as far as we can to convey to every new recruit that the Army offers a worthwhile and fulfilling career. We are laying particular emphasis on the encouragement of soldiers in particular to undertake courses of training which will give them transferable qualifications that they can use after leaving the service when they move into civilian life.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, recruitment depends on the career opportunities which are offered in the services. Therefore, can my noble friend say now when the Government are going to adopt the recommendations made in Sir Michael Bett's report, which will show what the real opportunities in the services will be?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend touches on another important issue. The review carried out by Sir Michael Bett has been carefully studied over the past year and more. We hope to make an announcement shortly on our conclusions. My noble friend is quite right in that the areas that Sir Michael looked at are the key to ensuring that we can recruit and retain the right personnel in future.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of our finest servicemen have come direct from school into service life? Will the Government consider the reintroduction of the apprentice system and the junior leader system and say what they are doing to right the major deficiency that we have all heard about?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are considering the possible advantages of reintroducing some form of junior entry, but that would be expensive to set up. For the time being we propose to watch the success of the other measures that we have already implemented before taking a decision about junior leaders. In particular, we want to see whether our initiative, in partnership with the careers service, delivers the kind of results that we hope for.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that the Army has recently introduced a recruiting drive through the Internet. Does he agree that not only should we strive to recruit junior leaders, but that we should also consider and focus on our cadet forces across the country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the increase in the advertising budget will yield results. As I have said, there are signs that it is already doing so. As regards cadets, we have always felt that while it is very useful that the cadet movement yields recruits for the three
738
main branches of the services, it should not by itself be regarded as a recruitment conduit. I believe that that would be retrograde.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that I asked him a question about the proposed statement on the Bett report a short time ago. Is he further aware that we are all now expecting, as the noble Earl said, a statement to be made shortly? Can we have the noble Earl's assurance that it will be made before the House rises for the Long Recess so that it can be properly considered and debated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with the wish expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I can only tell him what I said the other day, which is that we are endeavouring to ensure that that happens, but I am not in a position to promise it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all local authorities give free access to the military to recruit in schools and colleges and that they are not influenced by some Left-wing authorities who may not allow the military to recruit at all?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I would like to be able to reassure him that all local authorities have the same constructive attitude towards recruitment into the Armed Services. However, I am unable to do so, but it is something that we keep constantly under review.

Non-food Exports: EU Powers
2.54 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Union claims the right to ban member states from exporting non-food products to countries outside the EU on health or safety grounds.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Community controls on exports are principally governed by the EC's common commercial policy. The Community might seek to ban the export of non-food products from the EU, but we are not aware that it has ever done so on health and safety grounds.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which is somewhat disconcerting because it appears to indicate that there is a theoretical possibility that the Commission could ban the export of motor cars, machine tools or electrical goods if they were thought to be dangerous on health and safety grounds. Does the noble Baroness agree that the right of the Commission to interfere with the external trade of member states—as distinct from intra-Community trade—is nowhere mentioned in the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty, which seems to indicate that the beef ban must have been brought in through the back door in some unexplained

739
way? If, as is theoretically possible, the European Court of Justice eventually rules that the ban has been illegal all along, can the noble Baroness say whether British farmers and taxpayers will be compensated directly or indirectly by the other 14 member states?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly this is an area of great complexity. There is no doubt that under Article 3(o) of the treaty there is reference to the high level of health protection. I can read out the exact words if the noble Lord wishes. It is right that there should be health protection. What is wrong is where the health protection is extended into areas which should be those of national competence. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows, that is where we have objected very strongly. As regards the noble Lord's second question about compensation should the ECJ find the action of the other 14 member states to have been illegal, I do not believe that that is going to be the outcome although the noble Lord will know that at the present time we are awaiting information. There is no procedure that I know of for compensation to be paid. But it is certainly a very interesting legal point. I shall take much interest in looking into it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the European Court of Justice is beginning to take on the aspect more of a political court than a court of law as we would understand it in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that that is the view of many. But the point is that the ECJ has a responsibility which is defined in law. On occasions it has sought to go beyond what we believe to be right. That is why we have made the suggestion that the IGC should look into what should go before the ECJ and what should not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people are extremely worried by what she has just said? Does it mean that the European Union can ban any goods or produce from this country going to another country which is quite prepared to accept them? If that is so, have we not really lost our sovereignty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have not lost our sovereignty. The noble Lord seeks to embroider a situation which is not that unclear, although it is complicated. Article 113 is the main basis on which an export might be banned, but it is possible that powers under other articles of the treaty or in subordinate legislation adopted under those articles might be sought. It all depends on the goods in question or the aim of the prohibition. If goods are unsafe I would have thought that it was not in the interests either of the company producing them or of the industry in this country that they should be freely allowed into the market. So there is some sense in this although the noble Lord may find it hard to accept. We have to make sure that there is balance
740
and common sense applied in this matter. It is in those instances where we believe that scientific evidence is not being fully used to inform decisions that we have protested. That is why I believe that there has to be another look taken at the way in which the ECJ works on these matters.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the second supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will she also consider whether it might be possible for the Luxembourg Court not just to fine the 14 other countries but to fine the Commission itself?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I am not sure that it is one that will bear much fruit, but I shall look at it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the position as I understand it, which is that there may be a theoretical argument which says that such a ban on non-food products might be imposed whereas in fact for the past 40 years the Community has had the common sense not to do that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is absolutely right. If substances are dangerous, such as those which are subject to Regulation 2455/92 which relates to hazardous chemicals, member states must implement the importing country's decisions. However, that does not usually relate to products that are manufactured or used within the Community. It usually applies where those substances pass from a third country, through a Community country, and onward. That is why we need to take some care in making the sort of comments that are often made in relation to legislation to which we can fully sign up because it is in the interests of the protection of the health and safety of our people as well as of those in 14 other member states.

Clydesdale District Council: Proceedings
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the meeting between the Minister for Agriculture at the Scottish Office and Mr. Errington, they will inform Parliament of the outcome of the proceedings brought against the latter by Clydesdale District Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the proceedings between Clydesdale District Council and Mr. Errington were concluded on 28th February 1996. The sheriff found in favour of Mr. Errington and awarded costs to him for the value of his cheese and expenses from 14th February 1995 to be met by Clydesdale District Council. On 1st July 1996 I met Mr. Errington and the new director of public protection services at South Lanarkshire Council, the successor

741
council to Clydesdale District Council. The meeting established the willingness of both parties to forge a new working relationship for the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of how much I personally appreciate the courtesy and attention with which he has listened to representations made on behalf of Mr. Errington and the trouble that he has taken to visit Mr. Errington at his farm to inquire into what happened? That was most unusual and I should like my noble friend to realise that my thanks on this occasion are not merely formal. He has done marvellously well.
However, there is just one little point that I should like to add. I am sure that my noble friend has done all that he can to urge Clydesdale District Council to pay the huge sum of costs awarded against it by the sheriff. Does my noble friend know whether the council has yet paid those costs?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's kind remarks. Given my noble friend's previous track record, I had imagined that there might well be a sting in the tail. Perhaps I may commend the energy with which my noble friend has brought this matter to the attention of Ministers and the House. All who have been involved in the case are agreed that lessons have been learned and that much good will come of that unfortunate episode.
My noble friend asked specifically about costs. Mr. Errington has received payment with regard to the judicial review and the appeal. With regard to legal and witness fees in respect of the sheriff court hearing which commenced on 14th August, the sum involved has yet to be settled, but the hearing date has been settled and the sheriff intends to award Mr. Errington his costs. I remind the House that Mr. Errington makes a very fine product which I commend to all those who like blue cheese.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may associate myself with the grateful thanks which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has expressed to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken. Not only were the noble Earl's actions correct, but he went even further on this occasion than he need have done. We are all glad that the matter now seems to have been resolved. I do not think that I have ever read as much background material on any Question as on this.
Will the Minister consider one or two other points? I understand that the original complaint came from the local authority in Edinburgh and that the South Lanarkshire people had to examine it. There was then an investigation by the Scottish Agricultural College which said that the product could be dangerous, but another college, the Analytical Service Centre in Motherwell, gave it the "all clear". What worries me now is how we can reassure the public that our food hygiene practices are safe. Was this episode a one-off or does it indicate that procedures need to be tightened up? I wonder, for instance, whether we should have a government analyst to supervise such matters.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that public health will remain paramount in
742
all such cases. Indeed, Edinburgh District Council and a further two district councils analysed the cheese originally and found it to be in excess of the listeria threshold. However, the science involved in listeria is complex. Clearly, one needs a combination of increased research, which we are providing, and increased education for environmental health officers, which we are currently considering, as well as the further development of a code of best practice, upon which the Scottish Office, MAFF and the Department of Health are working with food authorities and specialist cheesemakers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what this fascinating cheese is called?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is called Lanark Blue and it is regularly available in the Dining Room next door.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, what costs have so far been incurred in the case by the complainant and by the local authority? Can the noble Earl give us some idea of the extent of the liability which will fall to be met by the ratepayers of Strathclyde Regional Council?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, details of many of the costs arising from the case are not in the public domain. I believe that Mr. Errington has not released information on the costs which he has already been paid for the judicial review and the appeal. I told the House a little earlier that the costs associated with the sheriff court have still to be finalised, but they will be paid to Mr. Errington. Costs have been awarded against Clydesdale District Council, which is now South Lanarkshire Council.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the second report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 96) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
European Communities Committee
1. In our First Report, Session 1993–94, we recommended that the European Communities Committee should appoint a sixth sub-committee on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and indicated that the number of sub-committees to be appointed thereafter would be a matter for further review in the light of other proposals for select committee work.
2. We now recommend that the European Communities Committee should be able to appoint six sub-committees for an experimental period of two years from the start of next session. This is in order to enable the Committee to improve its scrutiny of subjects which have not been satisfactorily accommodated within the existing structure of five sub-committees. We propose to review the position after two years.

743
Science and Technology Committee
3. Our First Report, Session 1993–94, also recommended that the number of sub-committees of the Science and Technology Committee should remain at two, and indicated that this would be further reviewed. We have concluded that the number of sub-committees should continue to be two for the time being.
A Foreign Affairs Committee
4. The Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House (the "Jellicoe Committee") considered the possibility of appointing a sessional select committee on foreign affairs. It concluded, in paragraph 123 of its report (HL Paper 35-I, session 1991–92):
"We acknowledge that there are sound arguments in favour of a foreign affairs committee. There is a wealth of relevant experience in the House and in these rapidly changing times there would be no shortage of suitable subjects for enquiry. Foreign affairs is such a wide policy area that any danger of duplication with the Commons' Committee on Foreign Affairs could be overcome, given prior consultation between the two committees. We acknowledge too that there are areas of foreign policy which receive little or no detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Despite these arguments, however, we share the misgivings, which were expressed by some witnesses (paragraph 38), at the prospect of select committees in the two Houses tackling the same general policy areas; and it has to be said that very few Lords proposed a foreign affairs committee. Finally, we do not accept the argument that, without the benefit of a select committee, debates on foreign affairs in the Chamber can be unfocused or have had little influence. On balance, therefore, we have decided not to recommend the appointment of a foreign affairs committee, though we recommend that the Steering Committee review the proposal from time to time, particularly as foreign and security policies develop within the European Community."
5. This Committee, which performs the functions of the Steering Committee recommended by the Jellicoe Committee, has accordingly reconsidered the matter. We do not at this stage recommend the appointment of a foreign affairs committee, but we would review the matter again if it appeared that there was significant support for it in the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill: Commons Amendments
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered in the following order:

Commons amendments 1–98,

Commons amendments 171–256,

Commons amendments 99–170,

Commons amendments 257–296.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2)
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order before your Lordships today is unusual in that it provides two sets of increases which come into effect at different times. This is to implement the recommendations of the independent Senior Salaries Review Body, which were debated in the other place last Wednesday and accepted in full. The order, when made, will provide increases of 3 per cent. for all Ministers and office holders in this House and a modest increase of £500 in the Lord Chancellor's salary lead over the Lord Chief Justice. It also provides further significant salary increases for a selection of Ministers and office holders to take effect after the next election. In this House, those affected are Cabinet Ministers and the Lord Advocate.
I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government thought the increases recommended by the SSRB were too high. We therefore proposed in another place awards based on the 3 per cent. increases recommended for Lords Ministers. Members of another place chose to reject the Government's advice and voted for the whole package, one element of which is before you today.
In making its recommendations on all parliamentary salary levels the SSRB applied the principle that the main determinate should be the level and range of responsibilities. In the case of Ministers and office holders in this House it also accepted the historical argument that ministerial salaries should remain higher than those of their counterparts in another place. Those principles are reflected in the new rates which the review body has recommended.
Your Lordships will have noted that no post-election increases have been recommended for Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. The same is true for their counterparts in another place, although they will continue to benefit from the increases in their parliamentary salaries. The reason for this is that in the time available the SSRB was unable to consider in sufficient depth the relativities between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in this House and their counterparts in another place. It will therefore consider that aspect further and make its recommendations in due course. If any of your Lordships wish to examine the development recommendation in the SSRB report I recommend a review of paragraph 59.
I should comment also on the three recommendations in the SSRB report on your Lordships' allowances, particularly in the light of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Those allowances are: a consolidated allowance for regular attendance; the entitlement to claim for two return journeys for spouses to attend parliamentary occasions; and the proposal to introduce these allowances from 1st August of this year and uprated in accordance with normal practice.
Her Majesty's Government need to consult the House authorities on the administrative arrangements involved in implementing those recommendations. I submit that they could be fairly complicated. If the House permits, I shall return to your Lordships with more detailed proposals in the light of those investigations as soon as I can.
I have already referred to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I can readily understand that other noble Lords may share his disappointment that the SSRB has not recommended any significant increases in Peers' expenses. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House, has already drawn my attention to the concerns of a number of Back Bench Peers on that and other matters. I welcome the noble Lord's interest in this matter. I hope that it will be possible for him, the Convener and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to confer with me in order to consider how best we should approach this matter in due course. I hope that your Lordships' House will regard it as sensible for that confabulation to take place before I return to your Lordships on this matter.
For that reason, I suggest that it is preferable to treat ministerial salaries and Peers' expenses separately in spite of the understandable concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Indeed, it is entirely commensurate with the past approach of the House to these matters. I should like to underline one way of looking at this important matter. In the past your Lordships have endorsed the principle that Peers' expenses should be treated as just that. They are not in any way remuneration, but a reflection of the fact that your Lordships' House is, in political terms, although not in terms of the expertise which this House embodies, an amateur House. Therefore, any suggestion that your Lordships' House as at present composed should attract remuneration is at variance with the nature of the House. I suggest that it would be sensible for your Lordships to regard expenses as just that. Therefore, we have a difficult line to maintain. On the one hand, we do not wish your Lordships to feel that you are subsidising attendance at this House in any way. On the other hand, I suggest that it would be wise for the general public to be aware that, in contrast to predilections elsewhere, your Lordships do not—dare I say it?—suffer from greed, and that if there is an opportunity to depart from the narrow path which I have suggested should be followed, your Lordships should err on the side of public economy rather than the reverse. That is something that your Lordships will wish to look at when considering the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to approve the recommendations embodied in my Motion this afternoon. I commend the recommendations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we have been told year after year that our remuneration is not a matter for this House but that the decision is made in another place. But when the Minister gave an answer to a question in another place at the time this matter
746
was debated he bounced the ball in here. In another place Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours, the Member for Workington, asked the Leader of the House:
"Why do the Government refuse to include evidence on the remuneration of peers? Many working peers find it difficult to manage; yet they do as much work as many Members of this House. Are they not being treated disgracefully?".
One could also say that about Ministers and the workload in the House compared with others. Mr. Newton's reply was quite clear:
"The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that there is an amendment to this Motion on the Order Paper. It is the custom of this House to take the amendment first and the order afterwards.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not yet the Speaker of the House, so I will proceed. Mr. Newton said—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am, as always, to be guided by your Lordships. If the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is intervening in my remarks I shall be happy to try to conclude my remarks by attempting to answer his point. On the other hand, if he is anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is to say I wonder whether the House would prefer to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, after the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, rather than before.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. However, my remarks have nothing to do with the amendment on the Order Paper; they are related to a completely different subject. When Mr. Campbell-Savours put his pointed question Mr. Newton replied:
"The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place".
He was referring to noble Lords. He went on to say,
"There are three recommendations in the report on which I have not touched".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/96; col. 491.]
He made it quite clear that we should be the masters of our own remuneration, not sit back like lapdogs waiting for the crumbs to fall off the table when the MPs have had their snouts in the trough. According to Mr. Newton, we have some say in this matter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I observed the useful and disinterested trades unionist intervention from the honourable Member for Workington, and indeed the reply of my right honourable friend in another place. Noble Lords' expenses are entirely a matter for your Lordships' House. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord on that matter. Ministerial salaries are a different matter. That is

747
a matter for resolution by both Houses, and it is to that particular resolution that I direct your Lordships' attention this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a distinction—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am reminded of my time in another place. I shall, of course, be guided by your Lordships, but in view of the strong feelings that this matter clearly engenders in your Lordships' House, and the fact that we have a great deal of business to get through this afternoon, I wonder whether your Lordships might feel it sensible to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in support of his amendment, and for other noble Lords to deliver themselves of their opinions afterwards.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I am not, in any way, Speaker of your Lordships' House and I think it is thoroughly undesirable for this House to have a Speaker. I hope I am right in thinking that my noble friend is perhaps suggesting against the will of the House that he should intervene at the moment. I will listen to what he has to say with the greatest of interest, but I wonder whether it would be possible for the House to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to confess that I had hoped we would conduct these proceedings with somewhat greater decorum than we have managed so far. My noble friend is a very experienced parliamentarian. I appeal to his experience and, indeed, his better nature. I assure him that I shall listen to what he has to say in due course.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("after the Leader of the House has consulted all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey their Writs on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances and when he has reported his findings to the House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must, first, apologise to the House, because in submitting this amendment I had no idea that it might cause any consternation.
In moving this amendment I should like to review some facts; put forward an argument for more information; and seek the support of noble Lords in the name of the effective involvement of all Members of your Lordships' House. I shall tell your Lordships what this amendment is not about. It might be felt that I am trying to curry favour with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in another place who both urged restraint on the increase in ministerial salaries. I am not trying to do that. This amendment is not about stopping or curtailing the salary increases.
Members of your Lordships' House and Members of the House of Commons are all Members of Parliament. Parliament sits for approximately 140 days per year. Members in the Commons will be paid £307 per sitting day. Members in the Lords have an allowance of £33 per sitting day. Members in the Commons have a second homes allowance of £85.50 per sitting day. Members in the Lords have a second homes allowance of £74 per sitting day. Members in the Commons have an office costs allowance of £331 per sitting day plus free postage while Members in your Lordships' House have a secretarial allowance of £31 per day and no free postage.
We need also to be aware that the average daily attendance in your Lordships' House is 374, or 31 per cent. of the total membership. The maximum daily attendance in the past year was 517, or 43 per cent. That was last week when we had a big debate and vote on the sale of married quarters. Our total membership is 1,195 Peers in receipt of a Writ of Summons. So 678 Peers who had received their Writ of Summons did not attend on that day—the highest attendance day in recent memory.
Some of those 678 Members will be old and infirm and therefore, for reasons of health, unable to attend your Lordships' House. But we need to be concerned that some Members of your Lordships' House in receipt of a Writ of Summons may be unable to obey that Writ of Summons because of inadequate allowances.
It is interesting to note that the Senior Salaries Review Body in its investigations into the subject of Peers' allowances interviewed only active Peers. There has been no attempt to glean the responses of those Members of your Lordships' House who may not be active.
We may also be trespassing on the goodwill and private income of our colleagues who do attend. I shall give details of a case study: an elderly Peer—I will not name him—takes a taxi to the House in the morning. He spends £5 and arrives at 10.30 a.m. He buys a cup of coffee: 35p; he has lunch in the Peers' Dining Room: £6; later in the afternoon he has a cup of tea and a muffin: £1.15. We need to recognise that cream cakes cost extra. Dinner in the evening will cost him £21.35. At the rise of the House at 10.30 p.m., he takes a taxi home. That is another £5. His total expenditure during the day for attending your Lordships' House is £39.85. That is before he has paid for a decent suit, shirt cleaning, and other costs which may be incurred. The daily allowance is £33. In that case, for

749
working a 12-hour day in your Lordships' House, the Peer subsidises the House by £6.85, and that is without having a drink.
My amendment requests the Leader of the House to consult all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey that Writ on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances, and to report his findings to the House. That information is important because I am sure that even Ministers would be unhappy about receiving an increase in their pay if they knew that Members of your Lordships' House in receipt of a Writ of Summons from Her Majesty the Queen felt unable to take part in your Lordships' business. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("after the Leader of the House has consulted all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey their Writs on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances and when he has reported his findings to the House.")—(Lord Monkswell.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a distinct difference in both the importance and the presentation of the amendment and the statement made by the Leader of the House. Following the statement by the Leader of the House, I want to ask him a question about the constitutional standing of this House.
I am not interested in Back-Bench arguments on the price of coffee and cream cakes that we have just heard, but I am interested in seeing that our standing as part of the parliamentary system is preserved. I want to ask my noble friend what efforts he has made to avoid the distinction between junior Ministers in the other place and junior Ministers here. Under the constitution, many Members of this Chamber have to be part of the Government. I should like to know whether they are truly Ministers when they are appointed or whether they are some down-graded type of Minister who comes rather lower.
In 1911 everyone agreed to give the other place all the powers relating to finance. However, we preserved our right to have our Ministers as part of the Government. Under the arrangement as I understand it, and as explained by my noble friend, that means that in terms of payment there is a distinction to the disadvantage of Ministers who sit in this House. I believe that that is bad and an acceptance that Ministers in this House have a lower status than those in the other place. One is either a Minister or one is not. One is not a part-time psuedo-Minister if one is a Minister in this House but a proper Minister if you are a Member of the other place.
On the basis of wishing to preserve the constitutional rights of this House, I did not want my point to be entangled with an argument about how much we should pay for our cream cakes.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I, too, tried to speak on the original Motion. I did not wish to become involved in the amendment. I wish to say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—and I hope that he
750
is listening to me—that I find the matter extremely distasteful. I have said so previously, and I shall continue to say it while it remains the procedure that recommendations that come before both Houses of Parliament are moved by Members who will benefit from them. That is most distasteful for the ordinary Members of this House who are obliged to accept the recommendations.
These matters should be dealt with in the same way as the Government have recommended that companies should review their directors' salaries. There should be an independent body within the House, rather than having the Leader of the House moving the Motion, which is promptly seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely it would be more practical for the Chairman of Committees, who is independent, to move the Motion rather than two politically involved Members of the House.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for what he said and the way in which he said it. I am content that he will have these various matters investigated. I do not support the amendment that is being moved.
However, there are real problems and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for acknowledging the role of my noble friend Lord Richard and others. I endorse what was said by the noble Viscount: no one having the honour to serve in this House receives remuneration unless he or she is a Minister. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about Minister's salaries.
The same should be acknowledged in relation to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. They work long hours, and under our existing arrangements no adequate research facilities are provided. In view of the changing character of the House and the long hours we now sit there is a need for a proper accommodation allowance. No noble Lord should be expected to subsidise the Government or the work of the House, as distinct from receiving remuneration. It is not possible to rent a flat for 12 months, for example, on the kind of allowances which are provided. Nor is it possible to have proper secretarial assistance.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will take on board the fact that I do not see why spouses of Members of this House should be regarded as less important than spouses of Members of Parliament, who are given assistance for 15 visits. That suggests that those of us who come from up-country should not be allowed the same attendance of our wives or husbands as those in another place. I cannot believe that that is right. We all know that wives of Peers and of Members of Parliament do a great deal of work for the country without recompense. I hope that we can be generous by saying that husbands and wives are entitled to have their spouses with them more often than twice a year.

751
I rest content in leaving these matters in the hands of the noble Viscount and I am sure that he will have them examined.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to take up the noble Viscount on the point of greed. I personally would find the expenses entirely adequate for my needs if it were not for my greed and my thirst.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the matter of the journeys of Members' wives. If one comes from Scotland that is a little expensive. When the noble Viscount talks about administrative arrangements, does he mean that for 30 attendances in the House you get one wife here? How is that to be arranged?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I may be wrong but I detect a feeling that the House does not want a lengthy debate on this issue today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may make three points. I read the report of the top salaries review body with some disappointment. I thought that in relation to your Lordships' House it had either disregarded the issue or had fudged it. As regards Ministers in your Lordships' House, the committee appeared to have disregarded the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Those points should have been regarded.
Secondly, I have considerable sympathy with the position expressed by my noble friends Lord Monkswell, Lord Dean, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Howell. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that this is an amateur House. In one sense it is an amateur House but in another sense it is becoming increasingly less amateur and rather more professional. In those circumstances, there is an issue which needs to be examined.
Thirdly, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to a letter which I wrote to him. I did so expressing my disappointment about the terms of the report. I stated that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Leader of the House, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers and myself should get together to see how we could advance this matter. By "advance this matter" I do not mean that we can persuade your Lordships to accept the terms of the report. I mean that perhaps we can produce a set of proposals which will be more amenable to your Lordships and fairer to this House than the report. I hope that that meeting will take place reasonably quickly. I also hope that there will be an opportunity to come back to the House before the Summer Recess so that you Lordships will be able properly to assess the whole matter.
I am afraid that I could not advise my noble friends to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monkswell if it were put to a vote. It appeared to me to be somewhat premature and not totally in line with the terms of the statutory instrument which we are
752
addressing. I hope that, having aired the issue in the way that he and other noble Lords have, he will feel it proper to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said. I hope that noble Lords who attempted to intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, moved his amendment will understand that my perhaps rather arbitrary suggestions were motivated in the interests of good order rather than anything else. I hope that noble Lords who felt that I was perhaps rather high-handed will forgive me.
There is no doubt of the justice of what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said. Perhaps I may refer him to paragraph 59 of the Perry Report, which I am sure he has studied. The report sets out a "development recommendation". Attention is drawn to the relationship between the salaries of Ministers in your Lordships' House and the salaries of Ministers in another place. It is proposed by Sir Michael and his team that they should examine the relationship between those two, and I hope and believe that they will give a very high priority to doing that. Certainly it will be my duty to come back to your Lordships' House to lay before your Lordships any proposals that Sir Michael and his team develop as a result of implementing the recommendations set out in paragraph 59 of their report.
Although, as a result, I cannot give a clear indication to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls of what will be proposed, I hope that he is satisfied that I am wholly conscious of the importance of this matter. I agree entirely with the sentiments that he has expressed. I hope that Sir Michael will take the feelings of your Lordships' House on board, particularly as support for the sentiments that my noble friends have expressed has come from the Leader of the Opposition.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for what he said. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows, I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of members of the Opposition Front Benches who, to the discomfort of the Government Front Bench, manage to turn in a distressingly effective performance in your Lordships' House in spite of having restricted resources open to them. The question of "Short money", as it is known, was outside the scope of Sir Michael's remit, as he makes clear in his report. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will forgive me if I break a confidence and say that he and I have already discussed this question at some length. I hope that it will be possible to make some proposals in due course, although I am not yet in a position to give your Lordships an undertaking to that effect.
I am aware also that your Lordships' House has become increasingly active over the past few years. To say that your Lordships' House is an amateur House perhaps begs a question in the way that the

753
noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested. Nevertheless, it would be wise if we, as a House, did not move too far towards using expenses as a substitute for a salary. There is a difficult line to toe here and it is one which, in the end, will be a matter of judgment.
I look forward to the conversations which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the Convenor, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I will hold—I hope this week, diaries permitting. I hope that we shall be able to give some account of our conversations before the Recess. I suspect that an account of substance will not be possible because, after all, one of the merits of referring the matter to the SSRB lies in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made; that it is difficult for us to be judge and jury in our own case. It is one of the things that makes the subject that we are discussing difficult and distasteful to all of us.
The fact that the SSRB has been asked to examine these difficult matters goes at least some way towards addressing the point that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made, although I accept that it does not go the whole way.
I have already detained your Lordships too long on this matter. However, I hope that your Lordships will nevertheless feel able to support the substantive motion which is about Ministerial salaries. In view of the exchanges which have taken place and, I am sure, the entirely inadequate answers that I have been able to give so far, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will feel that enough has been said to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate. It is not my intention to detain the House further. I was glad to hear from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend Lord Richard, that there will be discussions through the usual channels to try and sort out some of the anomalies that have arisen as a result of what, I would suggest, is a somewhat inadequate consideration—no doubt due to time constraints—of our situation here in the House of Lords by the Senior Salaries Review Body. I am sure that something will come out of those deliberations to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and provide resolutions to other problems which will follow further considerations by the Senior Salaries Review Body.
On the basis of the assurances that have been given during the short debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, to put the record straight, when I referred to the fact that he was not yet the Speaker of the House, my remarks were not directed at the noble Viscount, they were directed at the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who sits behind him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996
3.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [26th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The draft order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 will make two amendments to the Building Act 1984 which should ease some of the administrative constraints under which approved inspectors operate. Both amendments relate to the procedures that approved inspectors have to follow when they, rather than local authority officers, are undertaking building control work.
The first change relates to initial notices. These are forms which tell local authorities that the building work described in the notice is to he controlled by the approved inspector rather than by the local authority.
There is at present no formal procedure by which these notices can be amended if there is a change in either the work or the person who is to carry it out. The absence of a formal procedure for amending these notices can lead to a significant increase in the amount of paperwork that is necessary for a relatively trivial change.
The first amendment introduces a new section into the Building Act and provides for the giving of an "amendment notice". This gives a simple mechanism by which an initial notice may be amended where there is a change in the work to be carried out.
Another new section ensures that the amendment notice, when accompanied by the appropriate plans, can also be treated as the deposit of plans. The form of an initial notice is set out in the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 1985. It is proposed that the form of the amendment notice will be similarly prescribed, and appropriate amendments to the regulations will be laid before Parliament if your Lordships accept this draft order.
A third new section makes provision for simply giving notice of a change in the person intending to carry out the work.
The second change relates to the giving of final certificates. The amendment removes the requirement for these certificates to be given to the person by whom the work was carried out, whilst retaining the requirement for the final certificate to be given to the local authority.
This draft order has been before all the usual committees and has been approved by them without comment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [26th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Lucas).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving

755
the Motion introducing this order. As I understand it—and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the text of the order was not discussed fully in another place. My researches have detected no debate on this order on the Floor of the House of Commons. Since it is an affirmative order, that comes as something of a surprise. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to explain why that is so.
I notice also that the order does not apply to Scotland nor, indeed, to Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will explain why it does not apply to Scotland since it appears to be an order for the United Kingdom and not just for England and Wales.
Other than that, this has been the subject of considerable debate in your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be aware that the local authority associations—the AMA and the ADC—both registered some objections to the order. It was decided by your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that their objections had been reasonably met by the Government. But it seems to me that to have six pages of new legislation in a deregulation order involves a certain amount of extra regulation. I wonder whether it is in the spirit of the deregulation procedure to have six pages of extra legislation. Having said that, I have no particular objection to the order but I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the points which I have raised.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to the first two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The applicability of this order to England and Wales is in accordance with that of the underlying Act—the Building Act 1984. That applies only in England and Wales.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene immediately. Is there not a similar Act which applies to Scotland under which such an order could be laid?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have not addressed myself to that question. Certainly, my colleagues in the Scottish Office have not requested me to do so. So far as I am aware, amendments are required which apply to England and Wales. If there is anything to add to that, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am not aware that there is a problem in Scotland which requires to be sorted out.
As regards discussion in another place, the Motion was moved on the Floor of the House on 3rd July and another place chose to follow the procedures that it did. I have no wish to criticise it for that decision. I am well aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and the Deregulation Committee of another place have considered the matter in some detail. But in the light of the evidence produced jointly by officials from my department and representatives of the local authority associations, they reached the conclusion that the order is acceptable.
756
I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that we are seeking to deregulate by adding to the volume of legislation. I do not think that we mind which route we follow so long as the end effect is worthwhile, as I believe this order will be, not in any dramatic or enormous way; but it will make a useful improvement to the regulations as they now stand. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996
3.55 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996.
Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.
The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.
The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.
Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.
Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.
Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be

757
able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.
In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.
I turn now to the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order which does four main things. First, and principally, it allows a local authority to delegate decisions on the investment of its cash to a contractor. Pension funds and trust funds are outside the scope of the order, since these are covered by separate legislation. The contractor may be a bank, building society, or another financial institution such as a specialist fund management company. In practice, many local authorities already use such contractors to invest money for them. This order will now clarify their powers to do so, and establish some rules for contractors.
Secondly, the order specifies who can contract out the function of investment; that is, a local authority as defined in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This includes county and district councils, London borough councils, and county borough councils in Wales, as well as parish councils.
Thirdly, the order sets out the type of investments in which the contractor can invest money. These must be approved investments under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Essentially, approved investments cover certificates of deposit, bills of exchange and gilts.
The fourth main element relates to safeguards. As I said a moment ago, the order sets out rules for contractors. Chiefly, these are: that contractors must be suitably qualified and experienced; they must abide by proper investing and accounting practices and must comply with the local authority's instructions; the contractor is also required to provide three-monthly reports to the local authority, setting out the action taken on the authority's behalf, and to supply any information requested by the authority; the contractor cannot pass on the decision-making on investments to anyone else. Other parties can only be involved with the direct approval of the authority.
To summarise, this order is a sensible measure which will be helpful to local authorities in clarifying their powers. It also establishes limits, rules and safeguards for those who are investing money on local authorities' behalf. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for moving the first order. I was unaware that we were to take both orders together. I am perfectly happy to do so but I was not informed through the usual channels that the Minister wished to take both orders together. I wanted to make a 40 minute speech on the first and perhaps a 45 minute speech on
758
the second! However, I shall not detain the House and prevent your Lordships dealing with other important matters on the Order Paper.
As we are taking the two orders together, I shall start with the contracting out of tax billing order. First, I am glad to see that there is no question of compulsion. That is an important issue and we would have opposed the order very strongly if there had been an element of compulsion. Secondly, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that those who undertake to collect tax on behalf of local authorities will have proper confidentiality arrangements in their contracts.
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord can elaborate on what he said about enforcement. To say the least, it seems curious that private companies might be in the business of enforcing debts incurred as a result of non-payment of council tax or of any other tax that the local authority might be involved in. That is important because, as the Minister will readily recognise, people who do not pay their council tax are frequently unable to do so for many different reasons; indeed, I am sure that I do not need to go into the whole history of the poll tax to illustrate my point. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give me those assurances in his reply.
I turn now to the contracting out of investment functions order. I imagine, although the Minister did not say so in specific terms, that any contractor who is employed by a local authority to put out the cash of a local authority will be properly registered either under the banking Acts, under the building society Acts, or, as the case may be, under the Financial Services Act. If that is not the case, I hope that the noble Lord will tell me. We do not want cowboys putting in bids for local authority cash payments to be placed anywhere they like.
The Minister referred to CDs—that is, certificates of deposit. Are foreign exchange CDs excluded from this order? If the order is agreed to and there is a contract, are contractors allowed to put out a local authority's money into foreign exchange CDs? If so, under what circumstances and how? As local authority liabilities are all in sterling, it would seem to me slightly odd if contractors were able to invest in dollar, deutschmark or yen CDs of which there are plenty. Having said that, I have no particular objection to the orders to which the noble Lord has spoken. However, we need some reassurance on the points that I have raised.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I apologise for the fact that he was not given proper notice that we were to take both orders together. It had not occurred to me that that information might not have been transmitted to the noble Lord. I can only apologise. I can certainly confirm what the noble Lord asked me to confirm on the subject of compulsion. There is no wish that these matters should be a matter of compulsion; indeed they are strictly voluntary.
I shall deal, first, with confidentiality and enforcement as regards the tax billing order. Contractors will be covered by the requirements of the Data Protection Act in exactly the same way as local

759
authorities. Information obtained for a specific purpose, such as the collection of council tax, cannot be used for another purpose without the knowledge of the persons concerned. Many people in the private sector are concerned with private information—for example, banks, solicitors and many others. Given the fact that the regulations are in place, we see no reason why the same standards should not be expected of contractors in this instance.
As regards enforcement, there are, of course, delicate decisions to be made in the recovery process. However, a contractor will be governed in the decisions that he makes by the law and guided by the policies set down for him by the employing council. It will be for the authority to ensure that both are observed. That will be an important residual function for the authority, however much it contracts out.
I turn now to the second order. Article 9(3) of the order makes it clear that contractors need to be authorised under Section 207 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I know that the noble Lord is more familiar with that Act than perhaps I am, but I hope that he finds that response to be satisfactory. Foreign exchange deposits are clearly not approved investments or, indeed, the sort of investments that we would be likely to think of as approved investments. I agree with the noble Lord as to the mismatching that would occur if such investments were allowed. We are not looking at this as being a risky portfolio; we are looking at it as being a reasonable collection of alternative and relatively safe investments. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the comfort that he desires.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have today nine orders to consider, which implement the last tranche of recommendations from the Local Government Review. The orders are similar in nature, but, if your Lordships will permit me, I should like to speak in most detail to the Berkshire order in view of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Peyton has put on the Order Paper.
The order will abolish Berkshire County Council. In its place it will establish on 1st April 1998 six unitary authorities—one for each of the existing districts. It will also provide for certain other matters which follow on from that structural change. In each prospective unitary authority, there will be elections for the whole authority in May 1997. For Newbury, the order redraws the boundaries of electoral wards in order to correct the wide variations in the ratio of councillors to electors in some of the wards. For the same reason, the order provides for an additional councillor in Slough.
The order will make each of the unitary authorities a fire authority. That paves the way for an order under the Fire Services Act 1947 which will establish a combined fire authority for the county, effectively, therefore, preserving the existing Berkshire fire brigade area.
The order will transfer the county council's strategic planning responsibilities to the unitary authorities. They will then be able to work together to maintain a joint structure plan for the county. The order also provides for the continuing application of local legislation.
Unitary local government can bring many benefits including greater efficiency, less confusion and better accountability. It is for those reasons that we asked the independent Local Government Commission to look at the structure of local government in Berkshire, as well as in the other shire counties. There were six district authorities in Berkshire and the Berkshire County Council. In December 1994, the commission recommended that the present two tier structure should be replaced by a structure of five unitary authorities. They were to be based on four of the existing districts, together with a new authority which was to be formed by a merger of the two other districts; namely, Bracknell Forest and Windsor Maidenhead, thereby making five unitary authorities in all.
From some of the things which have been said on the subject outside your Lordships' House, noble Lords might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had gone against the clear advice they had received and were going down a path of their own choosing on Berkshire. That is not the case at all. My right honourable friend has accepted the commission's recommendations almost entirely. The commission recommended unitary local government throughout Berkshire. We have accepted that. The only point on which we disagreed was the proposed merger between Bracknell Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead. We considered that this would be unsettling and that a merger would increase the transitional costs.
The commission recognised in its report that a six-unitary-authority option could be expected to command wide public support. This was clear when the commission undertook its initial research into the views of the community. It was also apparent in the representations we received after the Commission's report was published. On top of that, six of the seven Members of Parliament for Berkshire support six unitary authorities. The seventh Member of Parliament, Mr. Rendel, representing Newbury, supports the abolition of the county council and the proposal for Newbury to become a single tier authority.
All this persuaded us that a separate council for each district would best reflect the community identities as well as providing effective and convenient local government. And Parliament clearly states in the Local Government Act 1992 that local government should be so organised as to provide "effective and convenient local government". It is important to balance all these points.
Yesterday we had a discussion on polls and their value. Polls may be interesting in so far as they provide an answer at one particular time to one particular question. The way in which the question is formulated can easily affect the result, but we should take particular care when the opinions which are being measured may be affected by substantial publicity campaigns. The Government have to look beyond opinion polls and beyond campaigns. We have to consider whether change will reflect local identity, to use a quotable phrase, in all its manifestations and whether it will secure effective local government.
I am only too well aware that many people hate change. That is a perfectly natural human phenomenon, in which I participate regularly. Any change creates feelings of apprehension. Berkshire County Council has orchestrated a very effective and vigorous campaign against its own abolition. One can understand that. It is said that six authorities could not match the county council's scope for economies of scale. The county council also claims that it has already made all the savings which are possible and that the costs of local government will increase greatly. However, this argument is questionable, and it is also one which is not accepted by the district councils.
The six district councils of Berkshire have committed themselves to providing good services at no extra cost to local taxpayers. This is not the Government saying it: this is the local authorities themselves saying it. And it is after all the districts which will be held to account if they fail to keep their promises and live up to their guarantees. Although the county council says that there are economies of scale in being big, one also has to remember that the fashionable phrase nowadays is that being big is not necessarily so successful and that any potential loss of economies of scale needs to be balanced against the significant gains which can arise from bringing services such as housing, which is a district council service, social services, which is a county service, environmental health, which is a district service, and trading standards, which is a county service, all under one roof.
It is said that the voluntary sector is opposed to the abolition of the county council. It is perhaps the case that dealing with just one authority is simpler than dealing with six. On the other hand, smaller authorities with a more local base than that of a county council should be better able to assess the needs of their area and to ensure a close match between those needs and the provision of services. It is the needs of ordinary people which should determine how best the services are to be provided, not administrative convenience.
It is sometimes interesting to see what people who have had experience of unitary authorities say about them. It is easy for people to say unitary authorities will
762
not work, that they will be more expensive, and so on. However, the chief executive of North Somerset Council, a unitary authority which came into existence in April this year, wrote to my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, saying:
"Comments made about the strategic disadvantage of smaller unitary authorities have not proved to be well founded".
Smaller unitary authorities, he says, can take advantage of better local knowledge and can find the most effective method of service provision using the public, private or voluntary sectors. Therefore, unitary authorities, certainly in the opinion of those who have experience of running them, can prove to be better, even when it was thought beforehand that that would not be the case.
I turn now, if I may, to my noble friend's amendment. This is not just a Motion; it is not just a critical Motion. It is, if I might say so, a blockbuster of a wrecking amendment. It invites your Lordships, in no uncertain terms, not to approve the order. One of the reasons it gives is that Berkshire is the only county council of an historic county which is being abolished as a result of the Local Government Review. I cannot disagree with that; it is perfectly true. But it is not the Royal County of Berkshire which is being abolished, but the county council.
The Royal County of Berkshire itself is not touched. It existed for 1,000 years before ever the county council was set up. The county council has existed only since the end of the last century. So there is no reason why the Royal County of Berkshire should not last as long after the county council is abolished. What we are doing is replacing the method of local government within the county, and that is a very different matter.
All the attributes of an historic county will remain in place. There will, for example, still be a Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire. I understand that the district councils will ensure that they continue to support the lieutenancy. Also, it is not true that Berkshire County Council has been, in my noble friend's words in his amendment, "singled out" for special treatment. Berkshire County Council actually pressed the case for its own abolition; it was the only county council to do so. Of course the council has now changed its mind, but everyone can do that. The fact is that it supported the abolition case in the first place.
The local authorities in Berkshire, in their submission to the commission in 1994—only two years ago—which was agreed and signed by five out of the six district councils and the Berkshire County Council, said:
"All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire. The two-tier system has caused confusion since its introduction in 1974, and there is support for change within the community. Unitary authorities will be closer and more accountable to their communities".
So said Berkshire County Council and five of the six district councils. I do not think I could have put it better myself.
What now is the position? The county council was originally in favour of unitary authorities. The Local Government Commission proposed unitary authorities. All the representatives of the people, the elected

763
Members of Parliament for the county, approved the proposals, and another place has approved the order. I suggest that your Lordships would be ill advised to go against that and to go against the longstanding convention that your Lordships do not overturn orders which have been approved by another place. For all those reasons I believe that the order will provide the best local authority administration for Berkshire. I hope that your Lordships will approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.20 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil rose to move as an amendment to the above Motion to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council on the grounds that of the 36 traditional shire county councils subject to the local government review only Berkshire has been singled out for total dismemberment, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while of course I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend, and I have listened to them with interest, I am sorry to say that I have heard nothing new this afternoon, probably because there was nothing new to be said on his side of the argument. Until a few months ago, when he became seriously ill, it had been the intention of my noble friend Lord Colnbrook to seek to persuade your Lordships that this measure was both ill-conceived and harsh in that it singled out the Royal County of Berkshire to be sliced up into six pieces and its powers and duties transferred to no fewer than six unitary authorities. My noble friend has done his best to explain why it is that the Government have gone even further than the Local Government Commission recommended. I am sure that I shall at least have your Lordships' agreement in sending a message of sympathy to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, and expressing the hope that he will make a speedy and complete recovery and return to your Lordships' House before very long.
Those who sit on this side of the House will, I am sure, be readier than others to recognise the massive achievements in many fields over 17 years of successive Conservative governments. There will, however, be some—perhaps quite a number—among my noble friends on this side of the House who will feel a good deal less comfortable as regards the field of local government, in which the record, I believe, has been far from happy. They will not find it all that easy—I do not find it easy—to avoid the conclusion that in one instance after another the Government have simply got things wrong. Certainly over the years the loyalties of many of the Government's own supporters in local councils have been greatly strained. Ministers have from time to time—I am sure they did not mean to do so—given the
764
impression of being possessed by an almost ineradicable hostility towards local government, and of aiming to hobble, if not to fillet, its total structure.
The consequences for the Conservative Party have been dire. Whereas it controlled 36 county councils in 1977, and 19 in 1989, it now controls only one. There has been during those years a positive bombardment of legislation. There have been no fewer than 210 Acts of Parliament bearing upon the functions and duties of local authorities. Orders, regulations and circulars have poured out in abundance. There have been few things like it since the time of Noah, only this time there has been no rainbow in the sky, nor any sign of a dove returning with some evidence that the flood may be subsiding.
Considerations of your Lordships' patience and time preclude me from mentioning more than two particularly ill-starred ventures in this field. First, the poll tax proved to be a costly and unmitigated disaster. Secondly, there was visited upon us the Local Government Commission, which at first seemed like an attempt to heal the wounds and to find out exactly what it was that people wanted. However, it soon drifted into a somewhat superficial exercise, the purpose of which seems to have been to persuade people of the merits of unitary authorities.
It is, I think, hard to say whether the commission's preference for unitary authorities arose from its own convictions, or from suggestions received from elsewhere, or whether it was enticed by the siren voices of the districts who claimed to be closer to the people and well able to perform the county councils' duties in addition to their own. By contrast, in the early stages the county councils were slow to see the dangers and came near to letting their side of the argument go by default.
The commission recommended, as a result of its first round of deliberations, the extinction of four county councils and the mutilation of six others. A resounding chorus of protest ensued and persuaded both the Government and the commission to have second thoughts. Those resulted in some welcome reprieves, of which, I am happy to say, my own county of Somerset was one. For the Royal County of Berkshire, however, there was no such happy outcome. It is alone in being shoved rather abruptly into the Government's bacon slicer. Rather oddly, the county council is being taken to task for having at first fallen in with the Government's proposal and accepting its own demise. There are, however, a number of factors which should be borne in mind before too much is made of this argument which the Government are wont to trot out from time to time.
First, I suggest to your Lordships that there is nothing inherently wicked, or even wrong-headed, in having second thoughts. I feel sure that Ministers would be the first to give friendly accommodation to such an idea for they have been known to change their minds themselves from time to time. Secondly—this seems to me to be important—the council's own complexion and leadership have changed. Thirdly, the council has learned from the way in which the protests of others have been received that invitations from the

765
Government to climb aboard their tumbrel can be turned down. Fourthly, the proposal itself has changed, as my noble friend said. Whereas at the beginning there were to be three or four unitary authorities, the number has now grown to six. Last, and most importantly, people have begun to reflect upon the price they may have to pay. Present estimates are that the owner of a house worth £100,000 will have to find a further £90 a year to meet transitional and continuing costs.
My noble friend on the Front Bench invited your Lordships to look at what has happened in other unitary authorities. I have done so. The other day I received a letter—I am sure many noble Lords have received similar letters—from Councillor Bob Pitt of Middlesbrough. He reflected on what had happened in Cleveland. He wrote:
"I cannot emphasise too strongly the disastrous legacy which the Local Government Commission has left for the people of my own area. It is now absolutely clear that the Commission hopelessly under-estimated the costs of making the change to smaller unitary authorities and that the prospect of predicted savings, even in the longer term, is negligible".
He went on to say that whereas the Local Government Commission had estimated its costs to be £18 million, so far approval for reorganisation costs of £32 million has been given by the Government, and the estimated likely cost in the end is £42 million.
Other anxieties have begun to arise as people begin to face the multiplication of boundaries. It will not be easy to carve up the county's arrangements for education or for libraries. Specialist services for the young, old, blind, deaf and mentally handicapped, affordable on a county basis, may be too much of a burden to bear for an authority a fraction of the size. Moreover, the charities which make a huge contribution to such services are organised on a county basis and cannot be parcelled out to match the new set up.
I have had a number of letters from various charitable bodies. In the interests of time I shall cut the extracts very short. The Berkshire Autistic Society states:
"We greatly fear that new authorities will not wish to be involved with children's problems to such an extent".
Reading Deaf Children's Society states:
"We cannot see how the effective provision of special education can be carried out by smaller education authorities without incurring considerable additional financial burden on the local taxpayers".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord quoted from the Reading Deaf Children's Society. Is he aware that the county borough council of Reading, of which I was a member, pioneered the teaching of the deaf? Indeed, it was alone at one time in having as part of its education programme the teaching of the deaf. Therefore, I do not think that what the noble Lord says, and what his correspondents say, bear any relationship to what is happening.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord persuades me that it is always foolish to give way to someone who will speak later. I shall leave the noble Lord to make his own speech when it comes to his turn.
766
I was about to mention to your Lordships the views of Age Concern which ended its letter with this summary:
"Economies of scale will be lost. Services provided by volunteers will not readily divide into small units and specialist knowledge and expertise will be lost … Providing services to minority users where numbers are small may have to cease. At worst, charities such as ours may not survive".
There will be problems also for planning and for highways. There will be difficulties for Ministers, for industry and for businesses. They will find themselves confronting different authorities. The new authorities themselves will not find it all that easy to get on with their neighbours—their fellow unitary authorities—and even less with those much larger county authorities with which they will be surrounded and by which they will be outgunned.
The fact that this order was swept quickly through the other place on a favourable tide should not unduly trouble your Lordships in considering this amendment. My noble friend described it as a blockbuster. All it calls for is some attention to be paid to the consequences and the need further to explore opinion in Berkshire.
The Government have made much of the fact that the MPs who represent Berkshire constituencies have supported the order. They have had, however, the difficulty that at the beginning, all the councils concerned, including the county council, supported the measure. For reasons with which I have already dealt the county council has now changed its view. Having taken up that position, very reasonably at that stage, I quite understand that it would be very difficult for Members of Parliament, who represent not the county as a whole but slices of it, to change their views. Moreover, they will have been, I am sure, under considerable pressure from those authorities which will be calling the tune in their own constituencies in the future.
I accept, of course, that there is a widespread desire to have done with argument: that almost anything is preferable to continued uncertainty. However, I believe that the proposed change, simple and easy as it can be made to appear, will bring with it expense, confusion and disruption which those who boldly put forward the proposal will find very hard to handle.
I want to end on a more general note. Without roots it seems to me that a political party can become a very odd and unpredictable affair, bidding for popular support, and seeking to fill its sails with any passing breeze in order to give the impression at least that it is on the move. I find it sad that the Conservative Party should now be seen, if not severing, at least picking at its own roots in an unfriendly way in the shire counties. I hope that by your votes today noble Lords will make the Government pause at least before they insist upon a measure which will be damaging both to themselves and to the communities whose interests it is their duty to sustain. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council on the grounds that of the 36 traditional shire county councils subject to the local government review only Berkshire has been

767
singled out for total dismemberment, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position.")—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I intervene in the debate as a member of a neighbouring county council—the county council of Surrey. However, I intervene also as someone whose interest in the constitution and the process of good government antedates by a very long time my membership both of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. I wish, therefore, to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said; and if he divides the House, I shall go with him into the Lobby.
From the earliest moment that the review of local government was put forward my concern for and my interest in the nature of good government, and what forms are best suited to it, led me to take a very close interest in it. I believe that it is essential at the local tier—a tier lower than the national level—to provide for two elements of good government: first, the local sensitivity; and, secondly, the strategic overview. Currently in the shire counties we have those two elements represented by the two levels of government.
I believe that if it had seemed likely at the beginning of the review of local government that we might end up with a system of relatively small unitary authorities and a regional authority to take the overall, broadly-based decisions, then I should have supported the Government throughout. But it quickly became clear that that was by no means the purpose of the exercise and that, if the unitary system were introduced throughout the country, there would be no protection for the much smaller authorities against the power of the central state. From an early stage, therefore, I opposed the review.
My concerns now, in relation to the order and the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, are with two aspects. One aspect is the process; the second is the aspect of results or consequences. I turn to the process and why I think the amendment is well drafted. I fasten upon the main and obvious fact that at no time have the electors of Berkshire been asked whether they are in favour of six unitary authorities in exchange for their county council. Berkshire is one of only two shire counties in which there was no opportunity at any time for people to show their wish to retain the status quo. That was not on the list of options submitted to the electors of Berkshire by the local government review. They were not allowed to vote for the status quo, nor were they invited to vote in favour or show their approval of six unitary authorities in place of the county council.
At a later stage in the proceedings, the local authorities put forward the suggestion of six unitary authorities, but it was in the context that there would be unitary authorities. The people who were consulted were asked to consider this question: if there are to be unitary authorities, upon what do you want them to be based?
768
Their response was that they would prefer them to be based on the existing district and borough councils. So the whole process of getting popular approval for the proposal has been flawed throughout. Therefore, reconsideration of the subject, as proposed by the amendment, is important.
As for the result, I do not believe that it will bring the benefits which the Minister put forward in his opening remarks. First, there is a fallacy abroad about the confusion of different levels of local government and the remoteness of the county council. The county council may be a long way from where people live, but the services are delivered to their doorstep, in their houses, in their schools and right where they live. When people receive those services, it hardly matters who delivers them: they are delivered by an individual, a head teacher, a social services worker, the person who responds to a letter about highways.
Through the county council, there is the scope to reduce costs by having a larger organisation. I draw your Lordships' attention to a letter which many noble Lords may have received from the Library Association. I take it as an individual example of a general truth. According to the letter, Strathclyde University has investigated public library services. It concluded that local unitary authorities with populations of less than 250,000 will be less efficient at delivering library services than larger authorities. All the Berkshire authorities have smaller populations; they are all 150,000 people or fewer.
The reasons the university came forward with that conclusion are twofold. First, it is expensive to divide up resources. That is true of information technology, which was never considered, certainly in the early stages, by the Local Government Commission as a cost. The division, relocation and reconfiguration of extremely complicated information technology, which is now universally applied to a wide range of services, is an additional cost. The second reason Strathclyde University came to that conclusion is that specialist services are provided—in this case by libraries—in many areas by county councils. If we start dividing them, the services become almost too small to stand on their own. I could mention the archaeological service and a whole range of different services provided by county councils which operate with no more than two or three people. Nevertheless, they provide a service to people which will be increasingly difficult to provide when the council is divided into unitary authorities. Countryside management may not be a problem in Berkshire; I do not know. It would certainly be a problem in my county of Surrey, and I speak as a member of the county council.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships, the amendment is well thought out and I hope it will attract your Lordships' support.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I have had a lifelong professional interest in local government. The tide of eloquence of the first two speakers has washed away the Government's last sandcastle. By contrast, I must be brief and dull, but good arguments bear repetition and I shall amplify three.

769
First, why did Berkshire County Council volunteer a four-way split and then change its mind? The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, covered that. I shall burrow a little further. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was hot on the question on 17th June and was warmly embraced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, apparently to their mutual surprise. The noble Earl said:
"For some funny reason it [the county council] changed its mind … Why … I do not know, and I doubt whether the noble Baroness knows".—[Official Report, 17/6/96; col. 91]
He returned to the subject today. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, went a long way to enlighten him and I shall help him further. Berkshire changed its mind because under its then leadership it was trusting and perhaps even gullible enough to believe in the Government of the day. The Government repeatedly claimed in 1993 that they wanted a widespread single-tier unitary structure. Mr. Gummer said in terms that the Government expected the two-tier structure to be "the exception". Berkshire made the grave error of assuming that that was serious government policy. The Minister for local government, Mr. David Curry, gave the same message time and again, not only to the House of Commons but to all English MPs. He has absorbed more punishment than any other British flyweight.
However, as late as 18th January 1995, Mr. Curry was still,
"personally committed to seeing unitary authorities throughout England".
That was well after the Government's policy had been stopped abruptly in its tracks by the commissioner. It was spectacularly dead in very little water.
In the face of a reversal in government policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, a prudent organisation exercises its right to change its mind to comply with the new circumstances. That is what Berkshire—voted one of the ten best administered authorities in the country—wisely did. Three unitary boroughs and one remanet unitary council, for example, might be seen as not unattractive as part of a country-wide unitary system. But it would be a grotesquely weak anomaly in a predominately two-tier system, which is what we have. The noble Earl and the noble Baroness might still regard this as "some funny reason"; more rational people do not.
My second reminder is that the Secretary of State's decision for six unitaries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, has been the subject of neither public consultation nor public endorsement. With great respect to the noble Earl, the reason for that decision by the Secretary of State remains a touch obscure, apart from providing him with a vehicle for a weak joke from "The Importance of Being Ernest" on 4th July last. In fact, the six-unitary system was analysed and decisively rejected by the Secretary of State's own Mark II, hand-picked Local Government Commission. The commission concluded damningly that it:
"would not meet the requirement for effective local government".
That is a direct quotation.
770
My third reminder is that Berkshire is the only traditional shire county to be singled out for total dismemberment. Even someone like myself, with a decidedly non-cynical cast of mind, might detect a faint connection between its unique dismemberment and the fact that the then Conservative Berkshire was the first county to petition directly the High Court of Parliament over the heads of its MPs about the iniquities of the poll tax. The petition was presented appropriately on 15th March 1990—the Ides of March, my Lords.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not live in Berkshire and I have no interest to declare. But I live in the neighbouring county of Buckinghamshire, where it was tried to introduce exactly the same proposals as those now before us. A number of us in the county, including a number of your Lordships, decided that they should be opposed because we did not believe that they were right, advantageous, sensible or even that they would work. We argued that for four or five reasons.
First, there was no evidence that the people of Buckinghamshire wanted such a change. Indeed, such evidence as there was showed that they did not. There was a poll which showed that three-quarters of the people of Buckinghamshire wanted things left alone. Certainly those with whom I came into contact argued that very strongly. Exactly the same is true in Berkshire.
Secondly, we argued that the change would cost a great deal of money, particularly in capital expenditure, to no particular advantage and indeed probably the reverse. Exactly the same is true in Berkshire.
We argued that the proposed unitary authorities were too small. I believe that that is so. Indeed, some of those in Berkshire with whom I have spoken believe that the unitary authorities proposed are too small to deliver the kind of services which they are asked to deliver.
Fourthly, we said that there would be quite serious knock-on effects on the library service and, for example, the county museum and the county art gallery when it was proposed—I do not know how it would happen—that totally different districts would subscribe to a county which, in effect, whatever the noble Earl says, would no longer exist. I believe that the voluntary organisations would find it much more difficult to operate in the kind of circumstances that are proposed.
Fifthly, we argued, I hope delicately, that nothing antagonises people more than interfering with the fabric of their county and their local loyalties. Those who remember the proposals of Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Lord Walker might do well to think about that. I also speak as an inhabitant of the only county which has a Conservative county council.
We put all those arguments to the Secretary of State and to the Government. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State agreed with us and has left Buckinghamshire as it is, with the exception of Milton Keynes, and I must say that I believe there is a case for Milton Keynes. Buckinghamshire remains and the county council remains. I beg my noble friend to think again, because this order is wrong.
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I congratulate him warmly on moving it today. In order that I may rebut any charge of being a Luddite in local government matters, let me say straightaway that the solution so far as concerns my own county of Hampshire was fair. Apart from a momentary madness, when the Government toyed with the idea of a unitary authority for the New Forest, and thankfully rejected it, the changes were reasonable. However, that madness has, alas, now been transferred to Berkshire, which the Government propose to abolish as a unit of government. Instead, we are told that six unitary authorities are envisaged, the largest of which has a population of only some 142,000 souls. We used to say "What a way to run a country!" Some still do so, I dare say. Perhaps I may add a new phrase, "What a way to ruin a county!"
In order to bolster that extremely dubious solution, which even the local government commission did not go so far as to advocate, various propositions have been peddled to the outside world. We are told that the county council originally advocated it. The answer is: only because it thought there was a countrywide presumption towards unitary authorities in the early days of the commission's work. It was perhaps naive of the council not to realise that it would be left high and dry once the tide had turned, as so often happens in these matters. It was perhaps naïve but not two faced.
We are told that the people want it. In 1994 the MORI survey was a survey to gauge public attitudes to options for a unitary system, and the result of 49 per cent. support for district based unitary authorities should be seen in that context. Predicated questions are not, noble Lords may feel, a sure fire way of discovering public attitudes to anything. In any case, a MORI poll in September last year showed 73 per cent. in favour of the status quo.
We are told that all the local MPs support the Government's proposals, save one. Of course they do. They all sit for the equivalent of unitary authorities. If we had an MP for the county of Berkshire, there are no prizes for guessing the form of local government that he or she would support.
We are told that Berkshire is a county of contrasts, ranging from farmland and rural communities to large conurbations, the implication being that only unitary authorities can adequately service such a rich diversity of human endeavour. I have news for those seeking to use that as an argument. Such a description encompasses about 90 per cent. of all counties in England.
However, there is something special about Berkshire. It occupies the most critical stretch of land west of London. It is an area of immense recent, and future, development, including what has been lightheartedly described as "Britain's Silicon Valley". The pressures on its resources from all sides are accordingly huge and constant. If ever there were a geographical area in this country in need of a strategic overview in terms of planning, minerals policy, transport, housing, waste management and 101 other things of importance, that
772
area is Berkshire. And it is there and only there that the Government have decided to wipe out the only body capable of dealing with problems on such a large scale.
Others either have or will talk about various aspects of disaggregation, its effect on the critical services through fragmentation, its costs and so on. I too have received information from the North East. Along the lines that decent tunes are always worth humming over and over again, let me just remind noble Lords of those figures from Cleveland.
The local government commission thought that it would cost £18 million. So far, the Government have approved £32 million in supplementary credit and the people on the spot predict that the final total will be £42 million. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister in his reply will refer to the fallacy of the estimates generally—not just there but generally—and why they are invariably pitched too low. It makes one wonder what the add-on content of the £25 million estimate for Berkshire will be and just how much additional burden the wretched council taxpayers will have to bear.
As a way of illustrating the folly of what is being suggested, perhaps I can take up and run with the thread of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about libraries. I accept that some may feel that things like libraries and archives may not be in the front rank of importance. But either we are a civilised country or we are not. They are therefore important matters.
It can be said with confidence that under the proposed arrangements the library service will cost more and provide less. At present there are two central libraries in Slough and Reading, housing, among other things, various specialist collections with 37 per cent. of the stock in circulation. What will happen now? Is the stock to be divided neatly into six equal parts? Or will some districts be more fortunate than others? For example, will Slough get all the Jeffrey Archers and Newbury the complete works of Karl Marx? We should be told, as a famous editor used to say.
What happens to the economies of scale? Bulk buying is advantageous, especially since the abolition of the net book agreement. It is highly unlikely that the new individual unitary authorities will, in the foreseeable future, have sufficient funds available to fill the enormous gaps created by the break-up. As in so many other areas, joint arrangements will have to be made; they will be protracted, cumbersome and inevitably lacking a central vision.
I greatly fear that it will not be possible to provide a service equivalent to the service now provided by the county. I fear too that that goes for nearly every other aspect of local government in the present county of Berkshire, unless this rash proposal is put on hold so that further soundings can be taken. Just for once cannot we let the people who will have to pay more for less decide on what the future for Berkshire should be instead of being subject willy-nilly to the irrational whims of Whitehall? I strongly urge all noble Lords in the Chamber today to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I listened with great care to my noble friend the Minister in an attempt to discover from him why Berkshire, alone of all the historic counties, should be treated in this way. Why, for instance, should it be treated differently from Buckinghamshire, which I was lucky enough to represent for 20 years when, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, there is no difference between the two counties yet Buckinghamshire has been excluded.
The reason why Berkshire is being treated differently cannot be because of public opinion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, so ably said. When, in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, last month, it was pointed out to the Minister that public opinion appeared to be against him in relation to what the Government were proposing on the evidence of the MORI polls, the Minister said that he could cite other polls the other way. Rather wisely today he reneged on that position and did not cite other polls—I suspect because there are none. Instead he took a different position. He said that one could not pay much attention to opinion polls because they are affected by substantial publicity campaigns. One could say exactly the same about a general election. I do not know whether my noble friend would discount a general election result because there had been a lot of publicity. The point is that so far as we know public opinion is against what the Government are proposing.
My noble friend the Minister waxed eloquent on the advantages of unitary authorities and cited in their favour the man who runs North Somerset unitary authority who, to your Lordships' enormous astonishment, is in favour of unitary authorities. If we do not obtain any better evidence than that, I cannot believe that we are being taken very far.
Of course there are good arguments for unitary authorities if they are of a proper size. Lord Redcliffe-Maud put forward ideas for unitary authorities of the proper size. Everybody knows—except perhaps the Government—that one cannot run education with a unitary authority of 150,000 people or less; that is crazy.
I wish to refer to one point that has not been raised. Before I was a Buckinghamshire MP, I was a Norfolk MP. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be aware, there was a great deal of trouble in the 1960s between Norwich and Norfolk relating to the boundaries. Norwich was a county borough and wanted to expand. Norfolk was a county. I represented the entire collar around Norwich. The last thing we wanted was to enter Norwich. If unitary authorities are introduced in Berkshire, the same problem will arise with Reading. For the Government therefore to propose a state of civil war, which will arise in a minor way between Reading and the surrounding county, seems to me almost as insane as the rest of what they are proposing. I hope the House will support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I speak to your Lordships as one whose home is in Berkshire. I gather
774
that that may be a declaration of interest, but I hope it does not disqualify me from speaking, in particular to support strongly the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton. Since the Minister addressed us—we all listened to what he had to say with great respect—every speaker has opposed what he laid before your Lordships. Because so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak, I propose to speak extremely briefly.
As far as I can see, every local government reorganisation has been attended with an underestimate of the cost. I strongly suspect, having heard the figures and read the literature, that this is no exception. We must expect the attendant costs to be at the higher end of the estimates we have seen in the papers that have been distributed. That will not only mean higher taxes. As we know from the remarkable letter from Councillor Bob Pitt, which was sent to many of us, it will mean cuts in services. They always go hand in hand on occasions of this kind. Judging from what he told us, those cuts will fall on the most vulnerable members of our society.
The specific point I wish to stress, already dwelt upon by many noble Lords, is the extraordinary proposition that the strategic council in the county should be abolished and that those services which it renders at the moment—I believe very well—can effectively and sensibly be performed by six different bodies in the same area. I find that an almost impossible proposition to accept. With great respect to the Minister I heard nothing which fell from him that gives me any reason to believe that it is a sensible proposition. How can minerals, highways, housing and all the rest be dealt with in such a sensitive area as Berkshire by six different authorities scattered throughout the county?
I should like to give one example from my own experience. I live in a parish called Chieveley, in the North Wessex Downs—an area of outstanding natural beauty. There was a proposal warmly supported by our district council to build a gigantic building in our parish which was in breach of all applicable planning guidelines and in particular the county structure plan. We were fortunate to receive strategic objections from the county council, both on the basis of protecting the structure plan and also on grounds of traffic.
I am glad to say that the application was called in by the Secretary of State. It may be, we do not know, that the objections from the county council played a part. It was announced later that the highways authority would appear at the inquiry to oppose the proposed development. The application was then withdrawn—obviously because it was going to be turned down by the inspector and in due course the Minister.
I tremble to think how a parish would cope with that kind of treatment if it did not have the strategic planning authority to assist in cases of need. I tremble to think also of what will happen to the county structure plan. Who will decide what goes into it? Will there be horse-trading between the unitary authorities to work out what it should contain? I do not understand how it can work. I urge earnestly upon your Lordships to bear that consideration in mind as being extremely important

775
in our beleaguered county of Berkshire. I strongly support the amendment that the local community should be consulted. I have little doubt about the answer.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, I had better bring my bucket and spade to the protection of the castles that my noble friend the Minister erected because I do not believe that they have been knocked down yet. My noble friend Lord Peyton, with whom I frequently agree, made a very interesting case, but much of it was built on shifting sand. He said that one of the reasons why the Conservative Party had lost control of almost every local authority was because of its legislation. With the greatest respect, and although I believe he has been in politics longer than I—I started in 1949—he must know that in local elections people vote against a government; they are not really interested in all the good things done by the local authority.
Perhaps I may give two examples in my own case. In 1949 I fought the then staunch Labour county council seat of North Islington. Sir Stafford Cripps produced a Budget two days before polling day and we had a recount in that constituency. In 1952 I fought the marginal London County Council seat of Stoke Newington. Conservative Ministers reduced the cheese ration two days before polling day and turned it into a safe Labour seat. So, I believe that we can discard the argument that it is legislation that causes these problems.
Let us be clear about Berkshire. It did not, as my noble friend said, accept its own demise. It supported it for three years. I am not sure why it changed its mind. I am sure that that was not because there was a change of political control. What is suggested is one more unitary authority. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Carrington. I have to declare an interest. I am chairman of the Milton Keynes liaison committee and deputy chairman of the Commission for the New Towns. That Milton Keynes has become a unitary authority is to be welcomed.
Much of the argument that I have heard here I heard over the abolition of the London County Council and the Greater London Council. "You cannot break up the education authority of London. It is marvellous. It cannot be done by the boroughs". Ill-advisedly, my Conservative friends in the Government created the Inner London Education Authority. When that was broken up it was said, "You cannot do that; it will not work". The London boroughs are running very good education authorities and no one is now asking to have back the former system which antagonised a lot of people.
I had 25 years in local government. The constant complaint was that "them" at County Hall were always interfering with "us" at borough level. That has to be prevented. We heard the arguments about charities. I assure your Lordships that the charities that operated across London are operating perfectly happily now with the new London boroughs. In many cases I believe that they are getting stronger support.
776
I cannot conceal from your Lordships the fact that I have been a lifelong supporter of single-tier authorities in local government. In earlier days it was the county boroughs and today it is the unitary authorities. I probably would not have spoken in this debate had I not seen my noble friend's amendment, which stirred me up. I have had many letters for and against from Berkshire. I have just reread the debate on this matter in the other place. The Commons did not divide on the Berkshire order. In a moment I shall quote from one or two points made by my honourable friend Sir Anthony Durant who spoke on behalf of all the Berkshire Conservative Members of Parliament. Perhaps I may give your Lordships just three quotations. First, talking about Berkshire, he said that it had already lost a lot of the county some time ago when Abingdon went.
"The white horse, which was once the symbol of Berkshire, was also lost in a previous reorganisation".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/96; col. 1083.]
So Berkshire has not been the same county for more than 100 years. Secondly, a MORI poll—
Lord Denham: My Lords, my noble friend cannot quote.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I am trying to pick out parts without actually quoting.
Lord Denham: My noble friend must not quote from a Member of another place.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, then I shall quote from a local authority, which I trust I may do. This quotation is from Purley parish council in the county:
"Only an authority that is totally out of touch with the people and unaware of what is going on could make such a statement. The public has been consulted … adequately … The Parish Council has no wish for its 'Local Government' to be run by a body that up until the last minute was saying it did not wish to put itself forward as a Unitary Authority, and was proposing its own dissolution…. This indecisive stance hardly inspires confidence for the future".—[col. 1084.]
Other statements made it perfectly clear that the local authorities were happy and felt competent to run Berkshire when it was no longer a county, but six unitary authorities.
Even after the change of mind by the county, a survey by the county itself showed that some 50 per cent. of people were in favour of unitary authorities or held no fixed opinion. So far I have not heard a case made out against the abolition of Berkshire. It is not a Machiavellian plot by the Government. It comes from a well-researched Local Government Commission report. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who said it, I resent very much his talk about a hand-picked Local Government Commission. This commission was picked in exactly the same way as is every other local government commission. So if we are attacking this one then we are attacking them all. The people who man them do a very good job. They are people of the highest integrity and they ought not to have their characters impugned in that way.

777
Perhaps I may sum up very quickly. We have already seen that these orders went through the other place without a Division. We know the views of the Berkshire MPs who, I suggest, do know what their electors want. The county itself, until it changed its mind after three years, also wanted this proposal. I believe that the case has been made and I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment and support my noble friend the Minister.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, as regards his remark about hand-picked local government commissions, that one of our difficulties in this whole range of orders is that the Government did hand-pick one commission, but they did not like the recommendations it made and so they sacked it and hand-picked a second commission. That is the source of a good many of the problems that we face.
This is a very similar debate to the one we had yesterday on the Kent order, during which I made rather a long speech so I shall be very brief indeed today. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the powerful case that he made, I can hardly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, could have been listening very closely if he did not believe that there was any argument at all for retaining Berkshire County Council. There is much in common between what we discussed yesterday and the discussion today. In Berkshire the evidence seems very strong that, as far as one can judge the available methods of measuring opinion, the majority view is for retaining the status quo. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, once again casts doubt on public opinion polls, then there should be some delay until there is an opportunity for an election in the county, which will be the best way to test that matter.
As regards costs, the need for a strategic authority and the fragmentation of services, which are all issues that we went through yesterday as regards Kent, they seem to be equally valid in terms of the case for retaining Berkshire County Council.
The main charge made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that of a change of mind by Berkshire County Council. I myself thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, answered it adequately. Having listened to the arguments so far and having read the background material to this matter, I believe that the real charge is not against Berkshire County Council for changing its mind, but against the Government, who are apparently incapable of changing their mind. They have so firmly committed themselves to what they regard as the principle of the unitary authority, to which the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, declared himself to be so dedicated, that they have really turned that principle into a sort of doctrinaire ideology. It would be much better if these issues were discussed in each area of England on their merits relating to the circumstances of that area rather than against that rather doctrinaire background. As I say, the real charge is against the Government for their rigidity, for defying common sense and for being unwilling to trust the people in this matter.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, we are now about halfway through the list of speakers and the score seems about nine to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and two to the noble Earl. It will be interesting to see how we end up.
I must declare an interest. I was born in a Nissen hut in the capital of the Royal county. My father was for years its Lord Lieutenant and most of my family still live in the Royal county, three being deputy lieutenants, one of whom is my mother. Members of my family have represented the Royal county in another place. At the turn of the century our family business was the 42nd largest employer in the United Kingdom and we employed over 7,000 people in the Royal county. I make those declarations just in case anyone thinks it rather odd that a resident of Scotland is speaking in this important debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I much applaud many of the achievements of this Government, but I have to say that their efforts in reforming local government have been nothing short of disastrous, the situation in Scotland being one of the classic examples. As my noble friend Lord Tenby mentioned, the Government's plans for the change of local government in Berkshire are nothing short of madness, sheer madness, and as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned, that madness will be expensive and complicated. I should like to hear from the noble Earl why Her Majesty's Government want to introduce something which is going to be expensive and complicated.
My noble friend Lord Tenby also mentioned the MORI poll, which showed that 73 per cent. favour the status quo. It is interesting that the average turnout at general elections is somewhere in the region of 73 per cent. It could therefore be argued that the voting population of Berkshire is in favour of the status quo. I feel sure that if that poll were conducted today, there would be an even higher percentage against the plans.
I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to maintain the status quo and to keep the Royal County of Berkshire as it is. The Government have nothing to lose and everything to gain by agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Peyton, who was good enough to support me yesterday. That is my first reason for supporting him. My second reason is that I agree with everything that he said. The argument about Berkshire is as strong, perhaps stronger, than that which was put to the House late yesterday evening in respect of Kent.
I shall not repeat all the points that were raised then, but our theme today is the same as that of yesterday. Why do the Government disregard the opinions of the people who live in the counties which they wish to deprive of their county councils? Why will they not honour the undertakings given, first, by the Secretary of State who introduced the provisions and who said—in words paraphrased by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington—that local opinions are paramount;

779
secondly, by my noble friend Lord Arran when he wound up the debate in your Lordships' House on 30th March 1994; and, thirdly, by the Prime Minister in the speech from which I quoted yesterday in which he attached importance to all constitutional change being in accordance with the will of the people? My noble friend Lord Ferrers did not like my quotation from that part of the Prime Minister's speech and went on to quote another part, which happened to be the very next sentence. It supported exactly what I said.
I beseech my noble friend to think again and to accept this opportunity for second thoughts. Many points of extreme importance have been made about the good governance of the county of Berkshire. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, and other noble Lords, reminded us of the difficulties of strategic planning in that area. Those points are very important and they were not contradicted in any way by my noble friend Lord Finsberg who spoke as if Berkshire was like London. Berkshire is a very special place. I should like to hear one single reason—I have not yet heard one—why Berkshire does not need a county council. I support fully my noble friend Lord Peyton.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that I have some qualifications for speaking in this debate. First, I have been concerned with the Berkshire reorganisation since its inception when a joint submission was made by Berkshire County Council and five districts for the abolition of the county council and its replacement by unitary authorities. I also saw Mr. Curry, the then Minister, to plead for the six unitary authority proposals, so I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I have been living with it for some long while.
My other qualification is that of residence and of involvement in public life in Berkshire over a long period. I have lived in Reading for 52 years. I still live in Reading. I have not gone to live in Scotland or elsewhere—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Shame!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is a very nice place to live, but Reading is very handy.
I have been involved in public life in Berkshire since 1954. I was a member of Reading County Borough Council for 18 years and was leader of that council for a number of years. I was also a member of many joint bodies, including the Thames Valley Water Board, the Thames Valley Police Authority and the Berkshire and Reading Fire Authority. I was a candidate for the Newbury parliamentary constituency in 1959 and 1964. Therefore, I can probably claim a personal interest as well as an overall public interest in what happens in Berkshire. I think that I can also claim some knowledge of what is best for the residents of Berkshire.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, refers to Berkshire as a "traditional" county council, but I should emphasise that Berkshire County
780
Council was doomed in 1974 by the 1974 reorganisation which transferred its northern area, including Abingdon, Wantage, Wallingford and Faringdon to Oxfordshire, and which left Berkshire as a narrow unviable strip, stretching from Lambourn in the west to Slough in the east, bisected throughout its length by the M4 motorway. That is Berkshire at present.
In fact, I was opposed to that reorganisation. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, voted for it when he voted for the Local Government Act 1972 because he was a member of the Government who imposed that Act on the country to the detriment of local government throughout the country. I was not in favour of Berkshire being dismembered at that time.
As I have already said, Berkshire is not a "traditional" county council. In any event, Berkshire did not have a county council until the Local Government Act 1888. It was only then, in 1888, that Berkshire got a county council at all. The fact of the matter is that Berkshire is unviable as an administrative entity, as Berkshire County Council itself has recognised.
Lest noble Lords have been taken in by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, that the county council was naive, I quote (I am afraid extensively) from the supplementary submission of the county council and the five local authorities:
"The present geographic area of Berkshire contains many diverse communities—the major towns of Reading and Slough, the older urban settlements of Maidenhead, Newbury, Windsor and Wokingham, the modern town of Bracknell and suburban areas with a clear individual identity, such as Woodley.
Fifty six per cent. of the land mass of the present County falls to the west of Reading…
These various communities, while sharing in the history of Berkshire which extends back, albeit not on its present boundaries, 1,000 years, now share little common identity. This is borne out by the evidence deduced from the 1991 census data, which was included in the collated pre-submission material. In addition, while Slough in the east is undoubtedly drawn to London, Newbury in the west has more affinity with Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire."
That was what Berkshire County Council said in its supplementary submission. With regard to unitary councils, it said the following:
"The County Council resolved in May 1992 that unitary councils offered the best way forward for local government. The Council sees the benefits of such a system as one single point of contact for all the local government services the public needs; a single voice to represent areas; no opportunity for 'passing the buck' between the tiers of local government; the avoidance of duplication of effort and, therefore, opportunities for greater economies and efficiency.
Having reached that conclusion, the Council, in recognition of the diversity of the County area mentioned above, believes that a sub-county pattern of unitary authorities would best serve the residents of Berkshire".
I let Berkshire speak for me and for the order which the noble Earl has tabled today. There is nothing naive about that. It is a considered statement by Berkshire county council. Therefore, it was astounding that in those circumstances the county council completely reversed its position in 1995 and demanded the status quo. It no longer wanted unitary authorities; it wanted Berkshire County Council—which I have shown is completely unviable as an administrative entity—to remain as it was with six district councils and a two-tier authority. Since then Berkshire County Council has

781
conducted a spurious and expensive campaign in order to put over its case. That campaign has cost the ratepayers of Berkshire over £100,000. I fear that it was a dishonest campaign to destroy the unitary concept in Berkshire.
We have heard a great deal about polls. About which polls are we speaking? Referring to some of the independent polls undertaken by the commission, MORI showed that 69 per cent. were in favour of unitary authorities; NOP showed that 72 per cent. were in favour of unitary authorities. When Berkshire County Council undertook its own poll it did not do so on an independent basis. It asked leading questions, and it was criticised by many, including the local press, for doing so. For example, it suggested that if people voted for unitary authorities it would cost them an extra £54 a year. If one asks a question like that one is almost certain of the answer. These polls need to be examined in the context in which they have been conducted. When the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, winds up perhaps he will tell us how he intends the Government will test opinion in Berkshire. Is there to be yet another poll? Will all of the people in Berkshire be consulted through a referendum so that the issue can be argued out properly? I hope that he will provide a reply to that question.
Berkshire County Council has produced figures for transitional and on-going costs which bear no relation to reality. In compiling them it has had no discussions with the proposed unitary authorities. It has refused to discuss these matters with the unitary authorities. How can one take such an authority seriously when it will not discuss matters of great importance with those who have just as great an interest, if not greater, in the matter?
I have already said that I was leader of Reading County Borough Council, whose first charter was granted by Henry III in 1253. I have cause to know how well unitary authorities can work. I know that they work more efficiently and better than two-tier authorities. I shall tell your Lordships about some of my experiences. I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in relation to the teaching of the deaf. Reading, comprising 125,000 people, was a very successful education authority. People used to move from Berkshire into Reading to take advantage of the better educational facilities in Reading. People from all over the country moved to Reading so that their children could be taught in Reading schools. Reading was a pioneer in the teaching of the deaf. If it is said that a unitary authority of 125,000 is not able to cope, I point out that Reading coped very well—and far better than the county council.
There are many other instances. We have heard of the library service. It is suggested by the Library Association that libraries cannot be run successfully with a population of less than 250,000. Reading with a population of 125,000 ran one of the best library services in the country—far better than Berkshire. People from Berkshire used to go to Reading if they wanted a rare book because Reading could get it from anywhere in the world. That was a service which Berkshire County Council was not prepared to provide. Library services can be and are run extremely well by unitary authorities throughout the country.
782
One can also refer to art galleries. The best art gallery and museum in the county was in Reading. Experience shows that services can be carried out efficiently by unitary authorities.
What about democratic accountability? That is important, too. When one is operating a unitary authority in a county borough it is known that there is only one body which is responsible for all services. One knows where to go. There is one point of contact. One takes a greater interest in local government affairs. At the time of local elections in Reading, which was the county borough and the all-purpose authority, the turnout was 55 per cent. In the county council it was 18 per cent. So when we talk about democratic accountability, surely we know the truth. We know that the all-purpose authority wins every time.
I have had a lot of experience of Berkshire County Council. I hate to criticise but I have to say that it is a remote, out of touch, inefficient and officer-driven county council lacking any sort of reasonable democratic accountability, so much so, in fact, that at one period even the local MPs had difficulty arranging meetings with the chief executive.
Another place agreed the order before us today without a Division, not even Mr. Rendel, the Liberal Member of Parliament for Newbury, attempting to force a vote. He was clearly in favour of a unitary authority for Newbury although he would not commit himself about any other unitary authority in the area.
I could continue for a very long time but there are other people who want to speak. I must however say this. It would be intolerable and unprecedented if this House were to set aside an important order which had been agreed by all but one of the districts and unanimously—I emphasise that—by the House of Commons. To do so would cause administrative chaos and confusion in Berkshire and its districts. It is not the Government that will be defeated if this amendment is agreed but the people of Berkshire who have already suffered intolerable delay and expense as a result of the petulant irresponsibility of the Berkshire county councillors who put their own survival above the real and long-term interests of Berkshire ratepayers.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I do not have the local government experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. To compensate, I shall speak for a very short time. It was with some conviction that I presented a petition from the Royal County of Berkshire to your Lordships' House on 13th June. It is with the same conviction that I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
My experience of that Royal county is, in fact, less than a year, which is when my wife and I moved there. But my family has lived there since just after the last war. Now that Slough has come into the Royal county, I think there must have been some connection because my father's middle name was Burnham. I believe that came from the Beeches—from my grandfather.
It really is a sadness to me to have to support an amendment against my noble friend the Minister and his order today. I find it inconceivable and incomprehensible

783
that the only reasoned argument he seems to be able to put against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton is that there is a resistance to change.
Change is something upon which I have concentrated for many years. It is difficult to handle change. It is usually pushed by technology. It is usually better to have a good understanding of technology so that one can understand the process of change. In view of what happened to the City in the 1980s, we know that imposed change is very damaging and very destructive. Managed change is, of course, what we like to look for. It has always been my view that to give a successful example of change is a much better way to promote change. But I have heard no example of where unitary authorities have been successful. The costs of implementing the unitary authorities in various places have been enormous and I hope that I shall not have to enjoy the increased costs of living in Berkshire.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, may I first of all say that I do not live in a neighbouring county; neither do I have friends who cannot be present in your Lordships' House; and nor have I entered into a mutual support agreement with other Members of the House.
I speak as someone who has lived in the Royal County of Berkshire for the past 30 years. Fifteen of those I have served as a borough councillor for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. My title carries "Windsor and Maidenhead in the Royal County of Berkshire", all of which I am extraordinarily proud.
I have seen many occasions in your Lordships' House when big guns have been brought in to bear on a cause which might not stand up without their presence. I think this is one such occasion. I have never seen such an array of illustrious big guns in support of something which should not be supported at this stage.
There has been a great deal of sentimentality and very little reality. I am sure that if your Lordships read Hansard u very carefully tomorrow you will see that there is very little substance in the arguments that you have heard for retaining the county council. May I reiterate that it is only the county council which is going, not the royal county. I hope to finish my days in the Royal County of Berkshire, whatever shape it is in.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with respect, it is unlikely that he was born in the county town of Berkshire because Reading was not the county town of Berkshire unless he is extremely young and should not be here. Abingdon was the county town. We lost that in 1974. We lost the Vale of the White Horse in 1974. The White Horse was the emblem of the royal county. I do not know where your Lordships were, but judging from the ages of many of your Lordships you should have been here protecting the real Royal County of Berkshire instead of trying to save a county council which has no chairmen at the moment for its committees because it cannot do a deal with the other parties. It appoints ad hoc chairmen to committees for each meeting. If you do not believe me, you can check it for yourselves.
784
That is why we are not in favour of retaining our county council, unlike the people of Buckinghamshire. That is another strange paradox that I have heard in your Lordships' House. We are not the people of Berkshire; there is some other mysterious entity that has not been consulted. All the people of the unitary authorities are not the people of Berkshire because they support the unitary authorities. There is some other large pool of people who have not been consulted, and they are the very people who should be consulted because they will be the ones who will support the county council. Who are those people? I thought that we were the people of Berkshire; the people of six unitary authorities.
Another question that I find interesting is: what will happen to the libraries, the collections and the archives? The archives will be in Reading. The ceremonial aspects of the Royal County will be looked after by the Royal Borough and—dare I say?—it will probably be much better looked after than at present by the county council.
We are not declaring UDI. We are not saying that each unitary authority is to produce a wall around itself and have nothing to do with its neighbours. That is not what will happen. Ever since the unitary authorities were mooted, the six have been working together enthusiastically and successfully, trying to put in place the preparations for providing the services which cannot be duplicated in each one. We are not as stupid as your Lordships may imagine. We do not believe that there can be six separate education authorities and entirely separate social services. No, we are not suggesting that. We are working together. We have had in place over a long time a number of initiatives for working together and now they are being developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, should not be seduced by the figure of 73 per cent. I doubt whether he knows how many people were consulted. In fact, 1,800 people were consulted and the county council had to admit that the questions were loaded. Out of the 1,800, 73 per cent. were in favour. The polls are not entirely satisfactory, but all the independent polls have come out in favour of the unitary authorities in Berkshire.
We wish to retain our Royal County. We wish to be part of our Royal County, but we do not wish to fund a defunct and useless county council which cannot reach agreement with other members to provide proper government. I am surprised that more noble Lords have not taken the trouble to find out what kind of a county council they are supporting here today. It would have been much more satisfactory if your Lordships had been able to do that. It comes to your Lordships from a position of weakness at this last moment when all legal challenges have been concluded. The House of Lords has refused it leave to appeal further. It comes to your Lordships from a gross position of weakness, not a position of strength, and I hope that your Lordships will remember that when you vote later tonight. The people of the Royal County of Berkshire will not thank you for retaining this defunct county council.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate until last night when I saw many names down to speak, but not many from Berkshire. I believe that to date we are running at "two all" as regards the residents of Berkshire. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, and the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, have spoken in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have made powerful speeches in favour of the Government's proposal.
I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have lived for 30 years in Berkshire in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. I support the creation of the six unitary authorities. I have been consistent in my support of the abolition of Berkshire County Council and I see no reason to change now.
Why did I so decide? The county council proposed its own abolition, uniquely as the Minister said. Was it uniquely naïve? I do not believe so, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has shown. The district councils and all the MPs concerned also supported the abolition. Before finally making up my mind I consulted the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Your Lordships will agree that there are a good many issues on which they disagree but they were united in their support for the proposed change to unitary authorities and in their conviction that Berkshire was ideally suited and capable of making a success of it.
The Local Government Commission proposed the abolition of the county council and local people supported that. As the Minister said, it is the county council and not the Royal County of Berkshire, which is to go. I entirely understand the feelings of my noble friend Lord Palmer. I had the greatest respect and fondness for his father, who was Lord Lieutenant, and for his mother, who is now Deputy Lord Lieutenant. However, as noble Lords have said, Berkshire has changed radically since 1974. We are not abolishing the Royal County. It is interesting that the most ardent local pro-Berkshire campaigner, who has been writing to many of your Lordships, is writing to restore the county's historic boundaries pre-1974. It has nothing whatever to do with the unitary authorities.
People, very understandably, have been concerned about the ability of six smaller authorities to keep and deploy specialist facilities to meet particular needs. I am, however, very impressed by the close co-operation between the six districts. I know that they plan to maintain the specialist services, with lead authorities running particular facilities and services and providing them on a contract basis to the neighbouring authorities. I do not have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, nor of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, but I should like briefly to describe my experience of collaboration at a local level in Windsor and Maidenhead to meet the needs of people with disabilities. That gives me hope and confidence in the development of local solutions.
I wish to talk about the Windsor and Maidenhead Users Network (WAMU). It comprises a group of disabled people, of which I am a member, and carers
786
and their families can join in. It was set up to support and encourage the participation of disabled people fully in the life of the community. Among other things, it issues information and advice and ensures that disabled people receive the support and services they need. It also advises the local authorities on what disabled people need. For example, it advises the borough's access group. In partnership with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, it runs the shopmobility scheme, which provides powered wheelchairs for disabled people who want to go shopping. It is establishing a nursery/garden centre to employ disabled people on the site of a former local council nursery. One of WAMU's aims is helping to plan and effect the transfer of services to the new unitary authority.
Last night when I decided to take part in the debate I consulted Peter Field, the chairman of WAMU, on what is happening in other districts. He stated that from a user point of view, provision varies. To date, there is no active user group in Wokingham. However, Bracknell, like WAMU, has at least one councillor as an active member. Newbury has close ties with the authority and is particularly strong in the social service arena. Reading and Slough also have good communication lines and Slough is bidding to become involved with shopmobility, as has WAMU. Peter Field states:
"This is only the beginning. The Berkshire Disability Forum, the umbrella group co-ordinating the work and development of the groups, is determined to retain a wider geographic base to ensure that equality of service is maintained and that services do not suffer as a result of splitting up the providers.
Much has been accomplished over the last twelve to eighteen months which has provided a much better platform to ensure that the impact of decentralising services will either be lessened or at least will be recognised and brought to the attention of those who can correct the situation".
Peter Field is a level-headed, retired businessman. Many years ago he had polio. He is severely disabled and needs an electric wheelchair to move around. Therefore, he is very much a user of social services within the royal borough. He states:
"I think things have now moved way beyond any reasonable argument in favour of retaining the status quo, and all energy should now be devoted to looking forward and making sure that all those with a contribution are heard and their views, if relevant, taken into account".
I totally agree. We must move forward. We must get the new system operating and ensure that key skills remain to meet local needs.
I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He was extremely persuasive—he has a magical way with words—but I urge your Lordships to support the Government, to support the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who have spoken with a wealth of experience and local knowledge, and allow the six local authorities of Berkshire to get on with the job.
Lord Elton: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Aldington, I have two reasons for speaking. I am so sorry, I am out of turn. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I live in Scotland and therefore have no material interest in present day Berkshire. However, in the past my family owned land both in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. My reason for speaking today is that I have retained an active interest in the town of Abingdon, where I take part in various local authority functions.
There is one point I should like to correct. My noble friend Lady Flather said that Abingdon was the county town of Berkshire until 1974 when it was transferred into Oxfordshire, together with Wantage and Farringdon, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The historical fact is that Abingdon was the county town until the 1860s, when the county offices were transferred to Reading due to the rapid expansion of Reading at that time with the coming of the Great Western Railway, and industrial expansion.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—although I do not agree with all that he said. He mentioned one of the main reasons for there being so much confusion over Berkshire at the moment. The county council has been criticised unduly, because it has been in a state of confusion for the past 20 years since the reorganisation of local government in the 1970s when it lost northern Berkshire, as the noble Lord pointed out. I do not, however, agree with his point as to why that has happened. The county of Berkshire as it is presently constituted can manage as a single county council so long as the uncertainty which has been behind its troubles for the past 20 years is resolved.
I have nothing against unitary authorities. However, I must disagree with my noble friend the Minister who said that they would not result in an increase in rates and taxes. The only way a small unitary authority can carry out its duties, without having to go to central government for funds, is to increase taxes.
I therefore support my noble friend's amendment to leave the status quo as it is, and which provides that the people of Berkshire—who are the most important people to consider under this order—should be consulted again.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise with trepidation having risen once, too early, to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—whose name I correctly deleted from the list—was about to rise in the same way as my noble friend, whose name I accidentally deleted, and to whom I apologise.
Like my noble friend Lord Aldington, I rise to speak for two reasons—one personal, the other logical. The personal reason is that I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who, at the outset, I thought was heavily outnumbered. I am not so sure now. My logical reason is that I believe that he is right.
My reasons for saying so arise from an experience different from that of other noble Lords. I took part in the principal legislation relating to this matter, and in the legislation relating to Wales, in particular. I had a
788
slight interest in the legislation for Scotland. We are now reaping the fruits of that legislation and I shall revert to it.
Only three reasons have been advanced in the debate for opposing my noble friend and supporting this Motion. The first is that the people have not been consulted. My noble friend Lord Peyton suggested that the Conservative Party, to which we both belong, had an urgent need to return to its roots. He started, incidentally, with Noah's Ark and went via the Tumbrels to get there, so the roots go a long way back. But where are our roots? Our roots are in the electorate of the United Kingdom. How are those roots to express themselves if not through their elected representatives? All seven of the elected representatives of the Royal County of Berkshire as it is now constituted supported the abolition of the county council. Six out of the seven specifically supported what is proposed in this order, and the other place let it through without a Division. I should have thought that that was an expression of the opinions of the roots.
But if you want to go further down you must go to the county councillors. At the outset, and for three years thereafter, they supported their own abolition, which is what is proposed in the order. They actually set it rolling. Or, if you want to go further down, you go to the district councillors. All the district councils are in favour.
As a House we give ourselves, if not airs, at least importance, as the defenders of democracy. Democracy has spoken. We now have an order to implement that voice, and it is opposed on the grounds that it is against our roots. That is misconceived.
Incidentally, my noble friend eschews referring to polls as a reliable source of opinion, but there was a reference—was there not?—to the MORI poll where 1,800 people were consulted. In the NOP poll—which was not carried out by the commission but was carried out for it by NOP—38,000 people were consulted, of whom 72 per cent. wanted to get rid of the county council. Every indicator that we have shows that, on the evidence given, the people want change, and change which involves the abolition of the county council—not of the county, but of the county council.
The second reason advanced for opposing the order and supporting the Motion is that it would be very expensive, complicated and inefficient to deliver services by unitary authorities which have hitherto been delivered by a tiered authority and by the county council.
Your Lordships may not realise it but we have been over this ground in a serious way on a number of occasions and we have always come to the same conclusion. We went over it in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. We went over it in the principal legislation for this Bill, and we went over it in the principal legislation for Scotland. I advanced that argument in two of those pieces of legislation, because, having been a Minister in the Department of the Environment and being interested in the delivery of local authority services, I have followed matters. I felt that there was merit in the argument that services would be less

789
effectively and more expensively delivered by the small unitary authorities. This House overbore me on every occasion. Your Lordships have decided and you are now reopening an issue which has been decided.
That is my second reason. I would add to it by saying that what matters in the delivery of local services is immediacy. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, suggested that what mattered most about them was only their delivery in the home. What matters is when they do not arrive. What do you do then? You go to your member. Who is your member? Is he a member of a county council representing 7,500 people on average or do you go to a representative on the district council who represents 2,000 people on average? The district councillor is more than three times more likely to know you by name when you are in trouble. That must be a measure of the benefits which this order can provide.
The third argument which has been advanced is the emotional one that it is a Royal county. I notice that those who oppose the order use the term "Royal" much more frequently than others. It is an emotive term. But the county as it was constituted does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out that a great slice of it has disappeared into Oxfordshire. I do not believe that he mentioned that with it was taken Alfred's Castle and the White Horse which was the badge of the County of Berkshire. Other bits were stuck on at the other end.
The historical analogy breaks down. Even if your Lordships feel that in some way that persists, I ask your Lordships to remember that the Lord Lieutenancy and the Shrievalty will continue. I believe that my noble friend has a difficult task ahead. He started out well; I hope that he finishes it better and that the rest of you join me in the Lobby with him when it is over.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Elton. I support my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Reference was made to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. He did not wish us to have the situation which we have today. He hoped that this would all be dealt with long before your Lordships had to make this decision.
As regards the history of local government, it started off with a parish system and then there were the Poor Law units in 1834. The boroughs existed and then there were counties and rural districts and urban districts. In the 1970s, something had to be done. That was faintly disastrous. Everyone thought that it was going to be economic within five minutes flat; and it was not. It took a long time. Twenty years later, it has all been rather successful. The Royal County of Berkshire would have been better without the bits sliced off it, apart from the purlieus of Oxford, which would make sense.
This is all very expensive. Archives is the one subject which I know about. I know that it is not the most essential service in the world but it is a very important service. I am told that if County Hall is sold, a new archive will cost £5 million. I have sat here for 30 years.
790
I can remember the late Lord Winterbottom asking a question of Lord Brockway when £100,000 was described as no bagatelle. I can assure your Lordships that £5 million is no bagatelle.
Archives is only one area in which there will be a great deal of expense. It will be dreadful; and to what effect? I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I thought that he was going to give a rather more stirring speech in support of Reading. I have listened to others who have tried to persuade me. I shall listen to my noble friend who might persuade me. The last part of my noble friend's amendment calls on Her Majesty's Government
"to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position".
My noble friend Lord Elton dealt with the question of Members of Parliament very well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke for 17 minutes. I shall speak for one minute. I support the amendment outlined so well by my noble friend Lord Peyton. One aspect causes me anxiety. What becomes of the associations and voluntary bodies who bear the county's name? Is it possible to have cohesion when associations such as the Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance and a myriad of others have to seek advice from six unitary authorities with six differing views compared with one central body of the county council? I am not suggesting that the spirit of those great organisations within the county may be broken but the prospect of clear, uniform thought is zero.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak in the gap. The reason that the second Local Government Commission was set up was that the Secretary of State claimed that there was a lack of consistency and coherence if you looked at the result of the proposals of the first Local Government Commission. The proposals to break up one of the long-standing county councils surely represents an inconsistency.
Secondly, the tragedy of this whole process has been that the Government refused from the very beginning to discuss functions and finance. The process has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning. What we have heard this afternoon has been a sad, tragic catalogue of people criticising and attacking other tiers of local government than the one which they choose to support.
Democracy is too important for us to be trapped by the narrow perspective of the exercise which the Government began. I do not believe that this second look at the process with regard to the County of Berkshire has produced the consistency or coherence across the English county areas with which the Government charged the commission. I personally would be prepared to accept incoherence and inconsistency if I had been convinced that the people of Berkshire want that and want to pay for it.

791
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Secretary of State for Wales and in particular, the Secretary of State for Scotland have had to admit that their costings for a change have been wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland has had to find additional resources in order to prevent what was almost a revolt by the people of Scotland.
I believe that the people of Berkshire should have an opportunity to have a say, if they are going to be asked to pay for a change. At the end of that process, I, for one, would accept their verdict.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, as I did in the debate yesterday evening, in that I am a member of a unitary authority. It is a London borough. I have no geographical or family connections with Berkshire or any part of it.
I may say that my unitary authority runs education for a population of about 160,000, although referring to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, I accept that we have imposed on us, because there is a matter of parental choice, the education of a number of children who live in an inner London borough and across the borough boundary. Therefore, to that extent our catchment is larger.
In previous debates on the various local government orders, I have made comments along the lines of, "We should not have started from here, should we?". The appropriate comment here is, "We didn't start from here". That is at the root of the whole confusion, and the material for the difficulties and in some cases I would say even almost ill feeling, which is a very great pity.
The county's original reaction, described as "naive" in its support for the process, should not be held against it. The Government may well feel that it has more than balanced its support by the actions that it has taken since then. But its original stance, on the basis that there would be a uniform pattern of unitary authorities, is entirely understandable.
I share with my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth the view that the Government should accept that there is nothing wrong in admitting to a change of mind. I must say that in introducing the order I felt that the Minister rather glided over the change in proposals since the joint submission was made by the county and constituent districts.
Comments have been made along the lines that almost anything would be acceptable to end the uncertainty. I understand that point of view. However, more than anything else, I believe that that is an indictment of the Government's having set up a process which, in retrospect, really cannot be supported; it is short-termism which I would not today support.
As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood said, the Minister's introduction seemed to contain pretty good arguments for unitary authorities in a regional context—and, I would add, with widespread parish councils. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, commented
792
on my noble friend's reference to quality of service. If I may speak for my noble friend, I believe that she would entirely accept that promptness of delivery is part of quality. Moreover, all of us who are members of local authorities should, in my view, be seeking to do ourselves out of a job as a court of appeal for those who are the recipients of services. I believe that the job of good local government is to ensure that the services are delivered well as a matter of routine, and not only if an appeal is made to a council member; in other words, to provide good quality overall, not individually.
I have often spoken of my concern that suitable arrangements should be made for strategic matters, including planning, transport, waste, minerals and so on. The points about Silicon Valley and the pressures for housing in the area are most important. However, to pick up a matter that I raised late last night on the Kent debate, it can at least be said for this order that it avoids the gap in legislation of which the Minister did not seem to be aware.
I regard the matter of ceremonial arrangements as less of a reason for concern. I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, did not claim the experience that her own borough must have in dealing with royal matters. It is, perhaps, a matter of routine and, therefore, she did not even think to mention it. It surprised me a little that, in another place, the Secretary of State said that people will still refer to themselves as coming from Berkshire. I am not really sure that that is an argument for anything; but that seemed to be his response to the point.
In my view—and I stress that this is my view—these proposals are good in parts. For example, the character of Newbury is rural and more westward looking than the other parts of Berkshire, while the areas of Slough and Reading quite clearly have their own urban centres; indeed, they have an urban character. I cannot say the same for Wokingham. I hope that its citizens will not think it pejorative if I say that it is substantially commuter land for Reading. It is quite a different sort of authority. That is why, as I said, the proposals are good in parts.
I should also say that I have been very impressed by the co-operation which has been shown by the district councils, which I believe have dealt with the proposals and plans most calmly and professionally. Quite clearly, they are already undertaking much work jointly. However, those are my views; they are not the views of the people who will be affected. We do not know what those are.
If the Government really had serious thoughts about the kind of slapdash polling that the Minister described—where the outcome depends on the question—they had no business not to ensure that the guidance to the commission required professional and objective polling. Comments have been made on polling this afternoon which have compared quite different types of poll. Indeed, polls which involve a relatively small number of people, undertaken in this instance by MORI, are not the same as NOP polls or questionnaires sent out to large numbers of people. I have made the

793
point before and, although I have no brief to defend pollsters, I must say that good polling does not depend on numbers.
There has also been mention of cost. In my view, it is not just a matter of the costs of transition and the extra costs which may be incurred by a unitary solution. I am very conscious that, in addition to those costs, there are also the uncosted person hours that have been spent in responding to what has been happening. I believe that that is understandable. The main point on cost is probably the overall loss of cash to local government services. It is from such services that the payment for this farrago—I believe that that is the word that has been used—has come.
I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who referred to the question of function. We should, perhaps, have started by addressing the issue of what local government should do. In my very early days in your Lordships' House, I remember debating that issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has come into the Chamber today to listen to the debate. That was my first Bill. Indeed, had we first addressed function, then perhaps the issues of structure would have been easier to deal with.
I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, quite simply because of the failure to consult on the proposal which is the basis of the order. I regard that as a real failure. There has been comment about those who have come to your Lordships' House this afternoon to put, in some cases, a very personal perspective. However, that is the nature of this House. Whatever the outcome, I should like to use the occasion to thank both members and officers of all the authorities concerned, who must have had an extraordinarily unsettling and difficult time but who I have no doubt have been doing their best to continue to provide good services. I end with a plea that none of the authorities is served an unremitting diet of either Karl Marx or Jeffrey Archer.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on these Benches we oppose the amendment and support the orders. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I emphasise briefly two points made last night in the Kent debate. First, since 1974, the Labour Party has broadly supported the principle of unitary authorities. We have done so because we believe that they offer a more transparent, "getatable" and accountable form of local government in which important services are not splintered between two tiers of local government. We know that that splintering generates confusion.
Reading District Council carried out its own survey in 1994. It found that 28 per cent. of the people of Reading thought that Reading provided education: it does not. It also found that 30 per cent. of the people thought that Reading provided social services: it does not. Finally, it found that 52 per cent. of the people thought that Reading provided libraries: it does not. What does accountability mean? How does any library user in Reading hold Berkshire County Council responsible for its library services if it believes, wrongly, that Reading Borough Council provides the libraries?
794
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that, although the county council may be remote, services were nonetheless locally administered and delivered. I do not believe that local administration is a satisfactory substitute for local democracy. That is perhaps the difference between our points. A two-tier structure generates confusion. Moreover, in my view, it undermines the competence of local government to meet the major challenges facing it in the decades ahead—for example, the issues of care in the community and of economic regeneration. How can local government deliver the best services for the public when, in response to the needs of care in the community, housing is the responsibility of one tier and social services another? Some of the most fragile and most vulnerable people in our society may fall in the gap between the two.
It is precisely for that reason that tomorrow afternoon, on the Third Reading of the Housing Bill, we shall be moving an amendment with which I know the Minister will sympathise. Of course, he may think that it is unnecessary, but I do not believe that he will disagree with the purpose of the amendment; namely, to require housing and social services to co-operate in order to make the services under care in the community appropriate and effective. We have to move such an amendment on a housing Bill precisely because that co-operation is now not happening between two tiers of local government.
Equally, when it comes to economic regeneration, what sense does it make to have planning at district level, highways at county level, youth and community services at district level, education and training at county level, and economic development run by both at the same time? Who knows who does what? How can you ensure a seamless service when officers duplicate each other, run side by side, send letters to each other and spend most of their time trying to co-ordinate with each other? That cannot offer competent and value-for-money services to the public.
The first reason why we on these Benches support the order is that we believe that in most parts of the country, and certainly here, unitary authorities will provide more effective services. We also take a stand on the issue of wrecking or "fatal" Motions. We believe it is wrong to support Motions or amendments to statutory orders which effectively overturn the will of the elected House. It is not a matter of convenience but of principle. We have no problem at all—in fact we are delighted—if, on an amendment to a Bill, we can persuade your Lordships' House to ask the other place to think again. We do that whenever we can and whenever we can persuade your Lordships to support us. On rare occasions—sadly, too rare—we sometimes succeed. But when that other place has declared its intention, either on the first round or if necessary on the second, we defer to the hegemony of the elected House. That deference was reaffirmed by very many of your Lordships just a few days ago when we had that same constitutional debate. We, as a House of Lords, respect and defer to the authority, in these matters of statutory instruments and orders, of the elected chamber. To do otherwise would be for the unelected House to overrule the considered view of the elected House. The elected

795
House, on this matter, did not have a single voice in dissent to the Berkshire order. There was a not a single vote against the Berkshire order. I think we should take the view of the elected House very seriously indeed and not seek irrevocably to overturn it.
I come now to Berkshire itself. First, the order does not abolish the historic county, as many of your Lordships have said tonight. It is the county that is historic, not the county council, which came into existence only in 1888. Before then the county was run by the lord lieutenant, the JPs in quarter sessions and the Poor Law guardians. The county council ran that county territory only until 1974. As the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said, in 1974 one third—not a trivial amount—of the county jurisdiction changed county area. The Vale of White Horse and Abingdon went to Oxfordshire; Slough and Eton went from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire. A third of the territory of Berkshire is new or has changed since 1974. So much for the historic county.
The order abolishes the county council. That is not entirely surprising because, until recently, the council was trying desperately hard to abolish itself. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, in May 1992, before the review began, the county council said:
"Unitary councils offer the best way forward for local government. The [county] council sees the benefits of such a system as one single point of contact for all the local government services the public needs; a single voice to represent areas; no opportunity for passing the buck between tiers of local government; the avoidance of duplication of effort; and therefore the opportunities for greater economies and efficiencies."
As the Minister said in his opening remarks—and it bears repeating—in their joint submission to the Local Government Commission the county council with the district councils said:
"All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire."
There has been much speculation in your Lordships' House as to why Berkshire County Council appears to have performed a volte-face over what was an unambiguous assertion that Berkshire County Council was in favour of unitary authorities and also in favour of its own abolition. Its policies changed when there was a change of leadership among the Liberal Democratic group 18 months ago. That leadership has a perfect right to change its views; I am not disputing that. The other parties, I believe, remained consistent and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, Berkshire county administration has remained exceedingly—one might say excessively—fluid. I understand that committee chairmen have to be individually and separately elected at each and every committee meeting. It is not surprising that in that situation county policies have not been exactly consistent.
This reorganisation, on almost every test of opinion that I am aware of, commands wide public support, including the support of all Members of Parliament. The MORI poll has been quoted. That poll shows 69 per cent. of the people of Berkshire to be in favour of unitary authorities, 49 per cent. in favour of the reorganisation of the existing boundaries, and the rest split between "don't knows" and "opposed".
796
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned the opposition of voluntary organisations. I do not know whether it applies to Berkshire, but I know—I repeat, I know—that in many counties voluntary organisations have been clearly told that if they do not write appropriate letters of support for the county council to the Local Government Commission their applications for grant will not be sympathetically considered the following year. Those letters have subsequently been checked by county council staff—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I think that in this Chamber we should be very careful not to cast aspersions on people in that generous-handed way. I think it a most unwise thing to have said. I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw those remarks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the contrary, I said that I know, and I do know. I do not know whether it applies to Berkshire, as I said, but from my own knowledge I know that this has happened. The noble Baroness may have a very different experience from mine; I am speaking to what I know.
Finally, we come to the point of costs. Examples from Middlesbrough have been much quoted. Let us stay with Berkshire, because there the transitional costs of reorganisation have been estimated by the Local Government Commission at up to £16 million with running costs of up to £8 million. I do not wish in any way to suggest that the figures are negligible—indeed, they are not—but what has not been mentioned is the Written Answer to Andrew Rowe, MP, from the Minister in the other place in June which confirmed that the transitional costs of £16 million should be more than covered by the capital receipts from the sale of County Hall, a modern building by the side of the M.4. Its value is estimated at £25 million. As for the ongoing costs, Reading, for example, estimates that there will be something like £1.9 million or £270,000 a year amortised over seven years, or about one-quarter of 1 per cent. of its budget of £100 million. Reading says—it may be wrong—that it expects its council tax to remain the same. So much for all the scare stories of "£100 on your bills". It is quite extraordinary. I have looked at a number of county council reports regarding the extra costs that will be generated by reorganisation. All suggest that it will be precisely £100 on the council tax bill. If it is not the same figure then, given that 85 per cent. of Reading's expenditure is funded by central government, any increase in council tax expenditure, or reduction in council tax expenditure, is much more likely to be due to alterations in the revenue support grant—for good reasons or bad—than to local expenditure decisions. We wish the new boroughs well. We believe that they will offer good local government which is effective, economical and accountable. We hope that they deliver services to the public that the public want and support.
6.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is nothing like local government and its procedures to get people worked up.

797
I do not suppose that today is the first occasion on which your Lordships have been in such a state. I thought some of your Lordships were in an equivalent state last night, so perhaps this might be described as a hangover from last night.
We have had today the sort of debate that we usually have on Wednesdays. Noble Lords have discussed the advantages of unitary authorities and single or two-tier government or the advantages of MORI polls or other kinds of Gallup polls. Noble Lords have asked why the people were not asked about this measure, and have discussed how we ought to ask them. It is difficult to acquaint all that your Lordships have said with what we are talking about, which is a simple order which has been passed by another place and has come before your Lordships for consideration today. Many different views have been expressed today. Someone has to decide something. So what did we do? We set up a commission. We told the commission to discuss the matter and think about it and then tell us what it thought. That is exactly what it did; the commission reported.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that anything is better than continual uncertainty. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid. But who is causing the uncertainty? It is my noble friend behind me. Here is an order that has been passed by another place—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, half a moment, I am in full flood. As I said, the order was passed by another place and now my noble friend says that it does not matter about any conventions, we should chuck the order back at the House of Commons, and that we should not agree with what the House of Commons has decided.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the excuse of being in full flood is hardly a good cover for misleading the House. Let me be quite clear about what I said. I said that it is understandable that people may come to say that anything is better than uncertainty. From that point I went on to say that the damage and the cost of what is now being proposed is something which in future people will find hard to handle, and ought now to be considered.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as they say, I shall have to read in Hansard what my noble friend said. However, as he referred to what other people might say, I assumed that he had associated himself with those thoughts. However, if have misconstrued him, I am sorry about that. My noble friend Lord Renwick said it was a sadness to support the amendment against the Government. However, he need not do so. He is entirely free not to do so. He is free to support the Government which, if I may say so, is the right thing for him to do.
I agreed with what my noble friend Lord Elton said in an excellent speech when he said he thought it looked as if I might have a rough time. I thought so too, but various cohorts have helped and have put the Government's point of view, or have supported the Government in what we are doing. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Finsberg and Lady Flather for
798
their remarks. My noble friend Lady Flather made an excellent speech drawing on her direct knowledge of unitary authorities. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. My goodness me, we are now getting the Opposition to understand the way to run a government! I so welcome their support, and I hope that they will continue to give it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if I have disturbed the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was in good robust form. He was in good robust form today. He accused the Government of acting like a commissar over Kent. That was not a nice word, but that is what he accused us of. He said the Government had a master plan to impose consistency, or rather uniformity. Today we are criticised for accepting that different approaches are right for different counties. My noble friend Lord Peyton asked why Berkshire alone had been selected out of 36 shire counties. We have been through that. That is what the Local Government Commission suggested and that is what Berkshire County Council agreed with and supported. Berkshire County Council supported unitary authorities. If it wishes to change its mind, it can do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister please confirm that the second Local Government Commission was appointed because the Government were concerned that across England there was a lack of coherence in the proposals that were being put forward?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. There was a second commission. The reason for that was because it was not just the Government who were unhappy about a lack of consistency in some of the recommendations of the first commission. That applied to the Opposition too and to most independent commentators. In any event that is irrelevant as regards Berkshire because it is the first commission's recommendations which we are implementing and not those of the second commission, with the minor exception of the merger between Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell Forest, which we rejected.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that Berkshire had changed its mind. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in what I thought, if I may say so, was an extraordinary remark, said that Berkshire went along with the Government's view because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had said—I paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, and not what my right honourable friend said—that the two-tier structure would be an exception, but when that was not the case, it changed its mind. I find that quite extraordinary. I cannot believe that Berkshire County Council said it wanted unitary authorities because that was what it thought the Secretary of State wanted, but when the commission proposed something different Berkshire then said it would change its mind. It is important to

799
remember that the review process has been conducted in two halves. First, there was a round of consultation and then the commission produced a draft report in which it recommended four unitary authorities. Consultation was held on the draft recommendations and then a final report was produced which recommended five unitary authorities with Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead being the fifth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said there was no consultation on change. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said he was surprised by the response. The Local Government Commission carried out two rounds of public consultation and the Government allowed time for people to make representations to Ministers on the commission's final recommendation. As the review progressed across England it was clear that no change was an option which could be considered in every case.
I now turn to my noble friend Lord Carrington for whom I have always had the greatest admiration. When I was a junior Minister I knelt at his feet and I looked up at him in admiration. I still do. There was a small hiccup this afternoon in that admiration but I have no doubt that it will continue. My noble friend said that the unitary authorities were too small. Up to 1974 there were many equally small, and smaller, county borough councils which provided in effect unitary services. Many were renowned for the good services which they provided. It is not the size of the authority which matters but the quality of its councillors and its officers. None of the proposed unitary councils for Berkshire is unusually small by comparison with some existing metropolitan boroughs which have been unitary since 1986. My noble friend said there was nothing that antagonises people more than tinkering with local services. I can understand that. We have had a reflection of it this afternoon. My noble friend referred to the reorganisation in 1974 involving Lord Walker and Lord Redcliffe-Maud. That issue caused a bit of an upset. However, my noble friend was a member of the Government in those days. He supported those changes, even though in retrospect he can quite reasonably take a different view.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, has the noble Earl left me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall come back.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, can my noble friend—for whom I have an equally profound admiration—tell me why, the commission having recommended that exactly the same proposals be accepted by Buckinghamshire and the Secretary of State having refused to allow them, he has not done the same for Berkshire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am always nervous when my noble friend begins by saying that he has enormous admiration for me. Something in my inner brain says, "Watch it!".
800
The answer is that each county and each order is separate. We are dealing not with Buckinghamshire, in which my noble friend resides, but with Berkshire. All the elected Members of another place were keen on the order and approved it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said that strategic services cannot be provided locally. He mentioned housing, which is already a district service, and highways, where the work is carried out by district councils on an agency basis. That illustrates the confusion and misconceptions which can arise about which tier of local government deals with the service.
The point is that six unitary authorities can work well together. My noble friend Lady Flather says that they already do so. On top of that, those unitary authorities will be closer and more responsive to local people. The districts say that they can supply services at no extra costs; and it is up to them to do that. The local authorities' own submission to the commission emphasises that the different community identities and the unitary authorities ought to be able to represent those differences across the range of services.
My noble friend Lord Aldington yesterday moved a Motion which declined to support the draft order for Kent. I suggested to your Lordships that it would be quite wrong to support that Motion because it would have prevented your Lordships from agreeing to an order which another place had passed. My noble friend's amendment is far worse. Let me remind noble Lords what it says. It states that:
"This House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council … and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order".
That is a wrecking amendment by any stretch of the imagination.
I sometimes wonder what has happened to the Liberal Democrats. They have been charging along the field today, and yesterday too, like a herd of heifers with the warblefly, with their tails up, having a go at anything in sight. I wonder whether they ever talk to their counterparts in another place. In another place a Liberal Democrat who is a Member of Parliament for the area is in favour of the order; yet all the Liberal Democrats who have spoken here—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—say that they will vote against the Motion. It makes us wonder what on earth is happening. It gives justification to what someone said the other day: if God had been a Liberal Democrat, there would have been "The Ten Suggestions".
What has happened over this issue? There is a problem. The Government set up a commission. The commission reported for unitary authorities. All five Conservative elected representatives of Berkshire in another place agreed entirely with the order. The Liberal Democrat hovered, but he was in favour of Newbury being a unitary authority. The order was put to another place; and it was agreed not only by those Members of Parliament but by another place, and was passed.
The matter now comes before your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords have said that they wish to vote against the order. I urge your Lordships to think

801
very carefully and, having thought very carefully, to decide not to do that. There is a serious constitutional problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded us that two weeks ago we had a debate on the constitution, the position of your Lordships' House, the composition of your Lordships' House and what ought or ought not to be done. I believe that for your Lordships to vote against this order which has been passed by another place—it is acceptable to the Members of another place and to all the local representatives in another place—would be quite intolerable and would give enormous offence.
My noble friend Lord Peyton takes up the cudgels and walks along rather like Moses visiting the Red Sea, saying, "Stop the waters. We don't want this to continue". I do not believe that that is the duty of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House is quite right to discuss the matter; your Lordships' House is quite right to put forward views on it. But to say, another place having passed this order, that simply because we cannot amend it therefore we shall throw it out would be quite intolerable. I hope that your Lordships will not do that.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, various temptations face anyone, having moved an amendment, replying to such a debate. First, I should like to yield to one temptation and spend a moment thanking noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, whichever side they were on. However, I shall not yield to the temptation to go through every speech and applaud some and challenge others.
I wish to deal with two points. First, I congratulate my noble friend who has replied to the debate on the particular pleasure that he must have from the strong support he received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. When the two Front Benches representing the two principal parties get too close together, as I believe they have throughout this operation, I become a little uneasy. Perhaps that unease is shared by some of my noble friends.
Secondly, there is the constitutional issue. I do not ask my noble friend to explain anything because I am sure that he would not wish to speak again. However, I express my bewilderment. In Bill after Bill and clause after clause we impose a requirement on the Minister making an order under a certain power that the order should be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. If my noble friend's point carries weight, we ought to change the form of that requirement and say that an affirmative resolution in favour of an order is required only by the House of Commons, and noble Lords will then forego the privilege which almost every similar provision has given to them in the past. That I find difficult to understand.
From experience of others in winding up such a debate, I believe that there is a great danger of losing support, and none of gaining it, by going at length into matters which have already been debated with differing degrees of skills on both sides of the House. I commend the amendment in my name.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ackner, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Addington, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Aldington, L.

Lowry, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bancroft, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Bathurst, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar, C.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Marlesford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, L.

Monson, L.

Chalfont, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Moran, L.

Chorley, L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Palmer, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Combermere, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Pender, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Croham, L.

Pike, B.

Cross, V.

Redesdale, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Renton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Renwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Rochester, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Russell, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gillmore of Thamesfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sherfield, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Simon, V.

Greenway, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stockton, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tenby, V.

Henniker, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walpole, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Marc, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Berkeley, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Berners, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Biddulph, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Biuntisfield, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Cadman, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L.

803

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Devonpon, V.

(Lord Chancellor.]

Dilhorne, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Eden of Winton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elibank, L.

Mersey, V.

Elton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Finsberg, L.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nicol, B.

Geddes, L.

Northesk, E.

Gisborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Parkinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rawlings, B.

Harlech, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Remnant, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Richard, L.

Hemphill L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hertford M

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Seledon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchcape, E.

Strafford, E.

Inchyra, L.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sudeley, L.

Judd, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kintore, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lawrence, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Vivian, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whaddon, L.

Long, V.

Wharton, B.

Lucas, L.

White, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
7.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to recommendations from the Local Government Commission's review of Hereford and Worcester. It sets up a unitary authority for Herefordshire on its traditional, pre-1974 borders. Worcestershire will keep two-tier local government;
there will be a new Worcestershire County Council. There will also be a new Malvern Hills District Council made up of those parts of the existing Malvern Hills and Leominster which are in Worcestershire.
I discussed earlier the reasons why we believe that unitary local government can often be better local government. The issues in Hereford and Worcester were looked at in detail by the Local Government Commission and the recommendations which this order implements were fully explained by the commission in its report.
In this order, the main elements are the same as in the Berkshire order. It provides for reorganisation on 1st April 1998. There will be all-out elections for a new council for all three new authorities—that is, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Malvern Hills—in May 1997. In each case the order provides for the redrawing of the electoral boundaries.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order sets up two unitary authorities in Devon, in Plymouth and Torbay. Two-tier local government will remain in the rest of the county. The changes were recommended as part of the county structure reviews. However, we have not been able to bring them forward any sooner because we were awaiting the outcome of the commission's further review of Exeter.
In its essentials, this order is the same as the ones that we considered earlier. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. The Essex order will create two unitary authorities in Essex—one for Southend and one for Thurrock. Each will follow the existing boundaries of the respective boroughs. The rest of the county will remain two tier.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order implements the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Peterborough. Its primary effect will be that on 1st April 1998 the City of Peterborough will become a unitary authority. The rest of Cambridgeshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Peterborough will be deemed to be part of Cambridgeshire.
There will be all-out elections to Peterborough City Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the city council to return to its regular cycle of elections by thirds.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendation that the City of Nottingham should become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries. The rest of Nottinghamshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Nottingham will be deemed to be part of Nottinghamshire.
There will be all-out elections to Nottingham City Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the city council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shropshire (District of The Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendation that The Wrekin should become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries. The rest of Shropshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which The Wrekin will be deemed to be part of Shropshire.
There will be all-out elections to The Wrekin Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the district council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendations that Halton and Warrington should become unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. The rest of Cheshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Halton and Warrington will be deemed to be part of Cheshire.
There will be all-out elections to Halton and Warrington Borough Councils in May 1997, after which the order provides for each council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
The order provides for Halton and Warrington Borough Councils each to prepare a unitary development plan. We agreed with the commission that it would be more suitable and convenient that strategic as well as local policies for each of these areas should be dealt with in one plan. Cheshire County Council will remain responsible for the structure plan covering the rest of the county area.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the party but I wish to say a few words about this order. In

807
a debate on the work of the Local Government Commission initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, in March 1994, I said that, having lived in Cheshire for nearly 50 years, I thought that a sufficiently strong case had not been made for changing the existing local government two-tier structure.
I was pleased when the commission, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham, recommended that there should be no change in the county structure. Nevertheless, the Government ordered further reviews in the case of both Halton and Warrington, despite the fact that the Secretary of State had earlier said that the views of local people were of paramount importance and that in a series of polls the great majority of people in both Halton and Warrington had made it plain that they were opposed to any change in the existing structure.
Now there is this order giving effect to the commission's final recommendation that Halton and Warrington should each be accorded unitary status. I feel bound to say that I deplore the Government's decision. However, the decision having been made, I feel that Cheshire County Council is to be applauded for having decided to co-operate with the two borough councils, thus ensuring a smooth and timely transfer of staff and services. I understand that the county council has already established good working relations with the two other councils and that detailed protocols have been agreed between the three authorities guiding their new relationships. Indeed, their leaders have jointly signed a declaration of commitment to that end.
I am glad that the order before us provides that it should not take effect until 1st April 1998. Even so, the task facing the three authorities is enormous and it has to be undertaken against a background of significant reductions in public expenditure. Therefore, I express the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he comes to reply in a moment, will agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider sympathetically the case for providing all three of the reorganising councils with the additional resources that they will certainly need to achieve their joint purpose.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in speaking briefly in this debate I confess that I have somewhat mixed feelings. For 23 years in another place I represented in turn Runcorn—much of which now goes into the new unitary authority of Halton—and Warrington South, much of which also goes into the new unitary authority of Warrington. I am aware of the views of the political leaders in the Warrington area and of their desires in this field.
On the other hand, I have a sense of sadness in that, like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, having lived all my life in Cheshire, I have a strong regard for the Cheshire County Council. Like him I was one of those Members of your Lordships' House who wrote to the Secretary of State urging that in Cheshire we should retain the status quo. Like him, I welcomed Sir John's original proposals and still believe that the vast majority of people who live in Cheshire as a whole wished to see that status quo retained.
808
Two points concern me. First, it is my genuine belief that Cheshire education authority is an education authority of an extremely high standard. The unitary authorities may not be able to provide the same width of services as Cheshire could. Secondly, I am concerned about the escalating cost of the reorganisation. Having said that, I realise, and repeat, particularly in relation to Warrington, that it is an extremely strong unit. It is an area, as the Member of Parliament for that constituency said in another place in a debate on the order, which has a strong community spirit. The two new towns have both been successful in encouraging inward investment into their areas. I have no doubt that they will do their best to make a great success of that unitary authority.
I believe that in relation to Halton the spirit of community between Widnes at one end and Runcorn New Town at the other may not be quite the same as that which applies within the borough of Warrington. Warrington probably never came to terms with Cheshire—at least I did not. I remember, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, remembers also, that just after our last local authority reorganisation it was said on the BBC that the Rugby League final would, as usual, be an all-Lancashire affair between Warrington and Widnes—some six months after Warrington and Widnes had been moved into Cheshire.
Cheshire is right to accept the decision that has been made. It has done so with good grace and it is clear, as the noble Lord said, that the areas are working together to achieve a successful handover of powers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I ask my noble friend to confirm that the Government will assist in any way they can. Though it was not necessarily my choice, I wish both unitary authorities well in the future.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for the way in which they received this order. I appreciate too the sadness that they feel in that they felt that there would be no change and now there is to be change. For my noble friend who was a Member for a long while and has been associated with that part of the country for many years, any change of this kind is no doubt upsetting. However, I have no reason to believe—from what was said I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, feel the same—that the changeover will not be successful. I agree that Cheshire County Council behaved in a most plausible way and that bodes well for the future.
The fact that the second revisitation—if I can so call it—of the commission occurred is the same as for Berkshire: that there seemed to be inconsistencies across the country about some areas that were made unitary authorities and some that were not. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the commission under the new chairman to look at 21 of those district councils to see whether there was any inconsistency. He found that nine district councils ought to be made into unitary authorities, whereas the others should remain with the status quo. I can understand therefore the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, saying that from his point of view it was a pity that that happened.

809
I have no doubt that the new councils will do all that they can. Of course, as unitary authorities they will be a great deal closer to the people and do all that they can to serve those people to the best of their ability. Cheshire County Council's attitude since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the decision is to be much applauded. It has been constructive rather than obstructive and I thank the council for that. The bids for financial support will be sympathetically received. That cannot be a carte blanche, but we shall certainly listen to their problems and see how we can deal with them. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996
7.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the new local government structure to be established in Lancashire will create two unitary authorities—one for Blackburn and one for Blackpool. Each will follow the existing boundaries of the respective boroughs. The rest of the county will remain two-tier.
Those changes were recommended by the Local Government Commission following the review of 21 districts, including—in Lancashire—Blackburn and Blackpool. The content of the Lancashire order, which is to implement these changes, is broadly the same as those in other orders for structural change.
The order makes provision for the creation of new unitary authorities for Blackburn and Blackpool to come into effect on 1st April 1998. In both areas there will be all-out elections for new councils in May 1997. The order provides for each unitary authority then to return to its normal electoral cycle—by thirds in the case of Blackburn, and by full elections every four years in the case of Blackpool.
The commission recommended that strategic planning should be retained across the area of the existing county. The order achieves that by transferring the county council's strategic planning responsibilities to the unitary authorities. The county council and the unitary authorities can then make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their combined areas.
The order provides also for the two unitary authorities to become fire authorities so that the Home Office can make a fire combination scheme—covering the two unitaries and the residual area of Lancashire County Council—under the Fire Services Act 1947.
The separate provision we intend to make for ceremonial arrangements will clearly show that the new unitary authorities are to continue to be part of the historic county of Lancashire for ceremonial and related
810
purposes and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff of that county.
As for other areas subject to change, separate provision will be made for policing. The intention is for the existing Lancashire county police authority to continue to cover both unitary authority areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when I spoke in the gap to an amendment on the first of this group of orders I said that I would speak about Lancashire. What I wish to say comes from my knowledge of counties in general and from my background as a county councillor for Lancashire County Council from 1977 until now.
This is an extremely sad day for local government, not because I believe that unitary local government cannot work on the basis of the boundaries, in particular of the former county boroughs whose record and tradition I greatly respect. I refer to Blackpool and Blackburn and to my own town of Preston which has perhaps the longest tradition of all, its charter dating back for so long.
As I said earlier when speaking to the Berkshire order, the beginning of this exercise should have been function and finance. I support my party's objective which is to have genuine democratic accountability at appropriate levels. I would be happy supporting unitary local government across the north west of England with a democratically accountable regional tier of government coming in at the same time. That is what I believe the people of the north-west and other regions of England deserve.
It is a tragedy that the basis of this whole exercise has been wrong. The starting point has been wrong. People have fallen into the trap of fighting over the corpse of real local democratic accountability in England and who is responsible for the inability of local authorities to deliver the services that people in the locality want. I wish all local authorities well for the future, but I do not believe that, under this Government's current policy, the new local authorities that come into being after today will have the freedom to provide the genuine local government that would flow from my party's commitment and that of the Liberal Democratic party to the charter of local self-government. I do not believe or trust that under this Government the costs will not be recouped in the case of Blackburn and Blackpool from the people who need the services.
Why do we need a tier above the unitary local authorities being created here which ought to have been part of a much wider group of unitary local authorities? We need that because the environment needs strategic action, not a voluntary coming together, at a regional level. We need genuine, strategic action to deal with environmental problems. We need it because the north-west needs tourism and development at a strategic regional level as well as at local level. We need it in

811
terms of economic development. There have been references to conflicts between economic development initiatives. The European Commission and the European Union see the north-west as an entity. KONVER programmes are needed at a regional level with democratic accountability. Defence is a major industry in the north-west. We need it for the macro-regional, public/private sector partnership that the authorities in the north-west are seeking to achieve on the basis of a voluntary association. It could be done better with a proper regional tier.
What we ought to be celebrating today is the opportunity for people to choose different means and different levels of locally delivered services. That will not emerge while current government policy stands. The opportunity for new and continuing authorities to meet the needs of the local population cannot be met while we have the rigid hand of central control. That will continue to cap the aspirations of those who seek to bring back policies to Blackpool and Blackburn that existed some time ago.
I do not make any apology for taking up your Lordships' time in what has been a long debate on a very complex issue. I wish that we had started from somewhere else. When, as a member of the committee of the regions, I attend meetings with people from other regions with democratic powers and accountability in the countries of our European partners, I am ashamed that we lack the democratic means of tackling the problem of air pollution as it affects children as a result of the lack of a proper regional transport policy in the north-west.
I wish all well for the future. My difference is not with my party, but with the Government, their motivation and the rest of their policies towards local government. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not prepared to support wholeheartedly change until we have change from the centre. However, I wish people well. I have not put down a notice to amend the order at this stage as I said at the beginning of the debate yesterday. I respect the conventions of the House as regards wrecking amendments. I await the time when there is such a change of government that we can actually celebrate democratic diversity rather than shifting the deck chairs around on the sinking ship of democracy under this Government.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I did give notice that I intended to speak in the debate. I am very pleased. On behalf of the majority of the citizens of Blackburn I welcome the opportunity of Blackburn going back to the position that it once held. We were a county borough long before county government. We in Blackburn, as a county borough, rendered human service to this country and to the citizens of the town. We were one of the leaders in education, housing, health and so on. We were sufficient in doing those things. Like my colleague, we were very upset in 1974 when we found that we were no longer our own masters and had been victimised because of something we had not done.
812
We are grateful to the county for what it has done since 1976 until now in acting as caretaker. We accept that it was a caretaker looking after our interests. Now we have the opportunity of going back to where we left off. I am convinced that the people of Blackburn who have been elected are competent people who will be able to carry out their duties and look after the interests of their electorate in just the same way as the people of Blackburn were looked after by the county council.
The priority over the next two years is for the county council and the new authority, which is to come into being, to work together and to prepare for the future. They should make sure that they are achieving what they want for the communities. I am sure that they can do that with co-operation. I am proud of being a Blackburnian, but I am also proud of being a Lancastrian and a deputy lieutenant of the county as well. I look forward to progress in local authority work. I hope that we can go forward together and not as enemies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He is quite right in saying that he hopes that everyone will be able to go forward as friends and not as enemies. If people are against each other over matters, then progress will never be made. When we have change it is essential that people work together. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, is very knowledgeable about these matters, having been chairman of the Lancashire County Council. She knows all about that area. However, I was distressed when she took such a swipe at the Government. She said that we would never find democratic diversity in the sinking ship of democracy. That was pretty strong stuff.
The noble Baroness said that she was against the Government, against their motivation and against their policies. I shall not take on the noble Baroness on that point because that is what she believes and she is entitled to her view. The noble Baroness said that she wanted locally chosen delivery of services. The whole point of these provisions is to make unitary authorities get closer to the people so that they can provide better services than previously.
The noble Baroness said that central government is assuming rigid powers and that she did not like the cap. Central government is bound to contain some fairly rigid powers. When one considers that 24 per cent. of all public expenditure is spent by local authorities, one sees that there is no way in which governments will not need to keep a rein on local authority expenditure.
The noble Baroness said that she wished that we had not started here and said that perhaps we should have started with functions and finance. The trouble is that wherever you start, there is always a reason why you should have started somewhere else. We have taken the bull by the horns with these structural orders. The noble Baroness will readily accept from what has happened this afternoon that that has not been universally popular. We are trying to make local government more accountable and closer to the people. However, ultimately governments cannot do that. It depends on

813
the councillors who are elected. I hope that those in Lancashire will work together despite the changes and the alterations. I am sure that they will.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, at least was pleased with the order and with the changes that it encourages. There is a diversity of view on the Benches opposite. I do not make any gibing or party political point on that, because we have had the same thing this afternoon on our side of the House. People take different views and they hold them strongly. However, somebody had to decide what to do and the Government have done that. It may be that what we have done will not be to everyone's satisfaction, but I hope that your Lordships will think that we have at least tried to get the framework right. It is then up to the people in the locality to make sense of it. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill
7.42 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important, if technical, measure. It is needed to remove an anomaly in existing legislation whereby HMSO may lawfully contract out the printing of all legislative and other material, with the sole exception of statutory instruments. That is not a trivial loophole; it raises doubts about the evidential status of copies of statutory instruments and calls into question the considerable savings on cover prices HMSO can achieve by contracting out that work. The Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to validate retrospectively and to authorise prospectively the printing of SIs by parties working for HMSO. It has no other purpose whatsoever.
Perhaps I might begin by outlining some of the reasons why HMSO and other printers routinely contract out work. Printing is an expensive business; in particular, printing plant is expensive to acquire, maintain and operate. A printer must obtain maximum usage from the plant he owns, otherwise he will incur unnecessary costs when his machinery is idle or under-used and will not obtain the maximum income to offset those costs. It is therefore very common in the printing industry to own only so much plant as the printer can be sure will be heavily used at all times. At times of higher demand, or for jobs where additional technical expertise is needed, the printer contracts out work to others. This is especially important for a printer like HMSO which has highly volatile demand for its services. Its workload depends on such imponderable factors as the electoral cycle, the legislative programme and new government policy initiatives. If it were to own sufficient plant to meet the peaks in that demand, its costs would increase greatly, with an obvious impact on cover prices and therefore on public access to official information.
814
The necessary alternative is for HMSO to contract out printing work. It has done so for very many years for a very wide range of material, and in the vast majority of cases this practice is perfectly lawful. In particular, it is able under the Documentary Evidence Act 1882 to contract with third parties for the printing of Acts of Parliament and other legal documents. Provided that these are printed under the "superintendence and authority" of HMSO, they retain their evidential status. As well as Acts of Parliament, HMSO has contracted out the printing of Budget and other sensitive official documents, passports and, indeed, the report of debates in your Lordships' House. Most of these jobs are technically very simple and the private sector has had no problems in providing a fully satisfactory service.
HMSO, its customers and the users of its information have therefore benefited for a long time from a regime which allows costs and cover prices to be kept as low as possible. There is only a single, anomalous, exception to this regime, and that is the subject of this Bill. It relates to the printing of statutory instruments. The Statutory Instruments Act 1946, as it currently stands, imposes directly on HMSO or its ex officio head, the Queen's Printer, the duties of printing, issuing and selling SIs. It does not contain the "superintendence or authority" provisions of the 1882 Act. Instead, the 1946 Act followed the pattern of its predecessor, the Rules Publication Act 1893, but these conditions are no longer suitable for modern conditions, even if they had been at the time. It is not clear why Parliament chose this form of words in 1946. However, the volume of secondary legislation passed, and therefore the burden on HMSO as a printer, was in those days very substantially less than it became from the late 1950s onwards.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1946 Act, HMSO has in fact contracted out the printing of statutory instruments for some time. Records show that the practice dates from at least 1965, and probably earlier, although it is not possible to give an exact date as HMSO has not retained any details of contracts before that date. Such contracting out may well be technically in breach of the 1946 Act, but HMSO thought it had good reason for acting in this way. First, it was merely following long-established practice for all other official material. Secondly, and more importantly, demand for SI printing is, if anything, even more volatile than for other documents. Large volumes of important instruments may be required at very short notice. If HMSO had attempted to produce all of them itself to the tight timescales required, its costs, and therefore the cover price of SIs, would have had to increase. As it is, contracting out has allowed HMSO to maintain prices of SIs at their current level for some three years at a time when paper and other costs have risen markedly.
The result of HMSO's actions is, though, that there are in existence very many copies of statutory instruments which have not been produced in strict conformity with the 1946 Act. I must stress that there is no question of the SI itself not being valid, nor of past convictions for breaches of SIs being unsound. Secondary legislation becomes law from the moment it

815
is made, or on a specified date thereafter, and can be proved if necessary by production of the original signed version, or a certified copy, to a court. However, individual printed copies may, possibly, be contested by those charged under them and it is possible that courts would be burdened by arguments as to their validity. As things stand, defendants charged with contravening an SI could be acquitted solely on the technical argument that an SI not printed by HMSO had not been properly produced; case law suggests that that is unlikely, but not impossible. It is more likely that the courts might become obstructed by arguments over the validity or status of SIs, and that individual SIs would need to be specifically proved.
In any event, it is clear that urgent action is needed retrospectively to confirm the validity and evidential status of individual copies of SIs. That would be effected by passage of this Bill at the earliest opportunity. Although the Government have been aware of the potential problem for some time, the extent of it and the need for legislation only became clear after taking detailed and expert legal advice and evaluating alternative courses of action. This Bill was introduced as soon as it was clear that primary legislation was the only way forward. Having publicised the problem, it is now necessary to solve it by passing the Bill as soon as possible. It is therefore essential that the Bill both confirms the status of existing SIs and allows contracting-out to continue in the best interests of all concerned ending this outdated anomaly. As drafted, it does precisely that. It would allow HMSO to contract with others for the printing and distribution of SIs on exactly the same terms as those currently applying to all other material, including Acts of Parliament.
This is a simple step and requires only this short Bill. All that is required is to amend the wording of the 1946 Act in each place, such that instead of specifying that SIs must be printed, issued and sold directly by HMSO, it merely requires that they may be printed, issued and sold by others working under contract to it. That is the substance of the Bill and forms the first part of Clause 1(1). The second part of that subsection deals only with a related document: the list showing when each statutory instrument was issued. There is no reason why this should be printed and distributed directly by HMSO, and again HMSO has in the past contracted out this work. The list can be used as evidence in court of the date on which an SI was issued, and it is essential that its evidential status is clear. This subsection both verifies that practice and provides that it may continue. As a consequence, the statutory instruments issue list would not bear the imprint of the Queen's Printer, but would instead state "printed for HMSO" rather than "printed by HMSO". The House will see that this is a minor point.
The second subsection of Clause 1 is a slightly more complex matter. One of the Bill's effects would be to amend retrospectively Section 3(2) of the 1946 Act. This section states that proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of a statutory instrument may be defended on the grounds that the SI concerned had not been issued by HMSO at the time the alleged
816
offence took place. Subsection (2) of the Bill prevents this amendment from applying to proceedings commenced before the Bill was published. Thus, the Bill does not deprive an accused person of any argument he might have had. In particular, it does not prevent a defendant from calling into question the validity of the statutory instruments issue list and thus argue that there is no conclusive evidence of the date of issue of an SI. The Bill makes no other changes to the scope of the defence under Section 3(2) of the Act or to other rights of defendants. It would simply change the criteria by which an SI might be deemed to have been properly printed and issued and the formalities for producing the SI issue list.
The House might have expected that, in introducing this Bill, I would by now have made reference to the privatisation of HMSO. There is a very simple reason why I have not done so. The Bill is not necessary for the privatisation of HMSO, which will proceed to completion irrespective of the Bill's passage. Short-listed bidders are all aware of the position, and each is proceeding on the basis that SI printing would be carried out in the public sector. The House should be aware that the total value of sales of SIs represents less than 1 per cent. of HMSO's turnover, so the work is in any event of no more than marginal importance to bidders. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has instructed HMSO to cease putting SI printing out to contract, and the practice will cease when this House rises for the Summer Recess. This is the earliest date on which HMSO can make alternative arrangements.
The Bill would allow the residual HMSO, which will remain in government after the sale, to contract out the production of statutory instruments. It could do this under contract either with the privatised Stationery Office or with some other printer, and in effect would be acting in the same way as HMSO does now. It is hard, therefore, to see any difference in the service that would be provided. The Bill merely puts its legitimacy beyond doubt.
We must be clear that failure to pass the Bill would have no impact on privatisation. The residual HMSO will have whatever capacity it needs to meet its statutory requirements, whether amended by this Bill or not. If it is not enacted before the sale occurs, all that would happen is that Residual HMSO would arrange to print all statutory instruments directly itself. Detailed arrangements for how this would be done are being drawn up. Residual HMSO would employ printers of its own and rent the night-time use of equipment at HMSO's Sovereign Press at Elephant and Castle. This would meet the requirements of the 1946 Act as it stands but would be a most unattractive option. It would require government to maintain a capacity that was rarely fully used and which would therefore involve needless extra costs. Without a subsidy from the taxpayer, these extra costs would need to be passed on in the form of higher cover prices for SIs. Estimates indicate that, if this course were to be followed, the average cover price of SIs would rise by around a third. There would be no obstruction to the sale of HMSO, only to the affordability of secondary legislation.

817
The brevity of this Bill belies its importance and urgency. It would, first, confirm the evidential status of existing statutory instruments, prevent the courts from being obstructed by specious debate as to their validity and remove any chance of defendants in criminal cases being acquitted solely on the technical grounds that an SI had not been properly produced. Secondly, the Bill will allow HMSO to continue to contract out SI production and secure best value for money and lowest possible cover prices in doing so. Its failure would create a real risk of burdening the courts and necessitate rises in the cover prices of Sls. I trust that noble Lords will see that this is a non-contentious and urgent measure, and it is in these terms that I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
7.56 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wish I could agree with the noble Earl that this is a simple and non-contentious matter. I do not believe that it is. On the face of the Bill, the matter is simple and clear. The noble Earl has opened the matter on the basis that the Bill merely purports to rectify an uncertainty in the present law. It is also retrospective in its application. I go part-way towards the noble Earl in saying that prima facie if that was all it did I believe that it would be relatively unobjectionable. The problem is that it does not stand on its own but must be seen against the background of what we believe to be the Government's foolhardy determination to press on with the privatisation of HMSO. On the 18th December 1995 in another place the Chancellor of the Duchy (at col. 1285 of Hansard) said:
"… I can confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed".
Yet, here we are approaching the Recess and, according to the noble Earl, rushing primary legislation through the House with great urgency. Both he and the Government continue to argue that this has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. The Written Answer given by the Chancellor on 19th June 1996 (at col. 471 of Hansard) says:
"Some of the printing of statutory instruments has been contracted out by HMSO for over 30 years as the most cost-effective way of producing them. A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer. This has revealed that while the Queen's Printer can contract out the printing of statutes, this may not be the case for statutory instruments".
On the face of it, HMSO has been acting outside the law for over 30 years in contracting out the printing of statutory instruments. To put it into economic perspective, as I understand it the annual cost of this work is about £200,000, while the total bill for the publication and printing of statutory instruments is about £2 million out of a total HMSO turnover of some £375 million a year. The Government's difficulty is patent. The legal basis of all statutory instruments contracted out would be open to challenge on the argument that those instruments were illegally printed. As the noble Earl has said, that might lead to doubt—I put it no higher—as to the propriety of the convictions
818
of those found to be in breach of regulations which had been so illegally printed. However, one ought to note that, although the legal force of statutory instruments so printed has been challenged on a number of occasions over the past 30 years, apparently no one has so far thought of the ingenious argument that as they have been illegally printed that is a reason for challenging them.
So, leaving aside the question of retrospection—if there was a hole in the law in 1946 I accept that should be put right—the rest of the Bill is the part which causes me some problems. The Stationery Office—HMSO—could easily have done the necessary printing itself. The noble Earl confirmed that tonight. It could, indeed, go on to do the necessary printing itself. It is not necessary to include in a statute the requirement that the Queen's printers should be allowed to contract out the printing of statutory instruments in order to fill the hole which existed in 1946. It is designed for a privatisation package so that whoever buys HMSO knows that they will be able to contract out the printing of these instruments without the possibility of legal challenge.
I am concerned about where this privatisation now stands. I propose to say one or two words about it. Over the last month or so the trade unions have taken the opportunity to hold detailed discussions with each of the bidders. I have a document which sets out the result of those conversations. The conclusion they come to is this:
"When the proposed privatisation was debated in Parliament the Government continually emphasised that if HMSO were to he privatised there would be 2 substantial benefits—HMSO would increase its turnover by trading with the Private Sector and HMSO would be able to invest in the future of the business without affecting the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement".
To put it more correctly, HMSO would be able to reinvest for the future without being constrained by political judgments on the PSBR. With this in mind, the unions posed two issues to each of the bidders: "What plans do you have to grow the trading base in both the Public Sector and the Private Sector'?" and secondly, "What plans do you have for future investment in HMSO?"
Each bidder identified that the key for HMSO to continue to be successful was to ensure that it progressively took a larger share of the public sector market, not the private sector market. They all argued that this is the sector where HMSO is known and is the sector for which HMSO has the expertise. None of the four bidders anticipated seriously attempting to make inroads into the private sector market in either the short or the medium term.
If that is right, and if that is the opinion which the trade unions went away with, one can only say that it knocks a hole in one of the strong arguments that the Government make for this whole privatisation in the first place.
As far as the issue of future investment in HMSO is concerned, the answers they received from the bidders did nothing to lead them to believe that any of the bidders contemplated significant investment in HMSO. None of them identified further areas of investment within HMSO over and above those already identified

819
in HMSO's own business plan. All of them were anxious to emphasise that any investment made in HMSO would have to be financed from within HMSO's own resources, presumably previous profits or loans set against projected profits.
The trade unions formed a view that none of the bidders plan to develop HMSO in the way that the Government outlined when debating the matter in Parliament.
I have detailed accounts of the discussions with each of the four bidders. At this time of night I do not propose to weary the House and go through them in detail. But they do say this:
"Clearly all of the bidders are backed by financial institutions who are all seeking a similar financial return from HMSO. None of them have outlined firm plans for the future that employees can look to and feel that HMSO will be facing a stable future. None of them intend to make substantial investment in HMSO. Crucially all of them envisage substantial further job loss and none of them will rule out compulsory redundancies. In view of all this we do not see one bidder who from our perspective offers a secure future for our members.
… With all of the bidders making it clear that they expect to float HMSO on the Stock Exchange within 4 to 8 years following a further period of change and uncertainty there is not a great deal that we can point positively towards."
I have to say to the Government, even in a House as thin as this tonight, if that is the real position that the bidders are taking up it does not accord with what the Government set out very fully and very firmly as the objectives of this privatisation. If that is the position, the Government can do one of two things. They can either call it off—which I do not expect they will for I imagine that they are now over-committed on this particular frolic—or, alternatively, they could perhaps readvertise and hope to attract a few new buyers—a few new bidders who would at least pay greater attention to what the Government set out as the original objectives for this privatisation.
In our view, this is a privatisation too far. It is flawed in its concept. It has been ill thought out by the Government and particularly by the bidders. It is creating deep uncertainty in the workforce. I think the Government should think again.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government on finding a mess which has to be cleared up and for which they could not possibly be held responsible. One cannot blame the Government for an oversight of a draftsman of a Labour Government Bill in 1946. But it is a piece of retrospective legislation and it should not, therefore, just be automatically passed on the nod. It deprives people of a defence that they now have or may have in proceedings which may be brought against them. They may not realise they had such a defence, but it has now been brought to their attention and we are taking that right away.
820
It is hardly a heinous case of retrospective legislation. One could think of a great deal worse than this particular Bill. If one looks at it one can be satisfied that no injustice will be done and therefore there are not really any objections to the Bill.
But it could, incidentally, also be regarded as an indemnity Bill. If one looks at the Documentary Evidence Act of 1882 it says under Section 3
"If any person prints any copy of any … order, regulation … which falsely purports to have been printed under the superintendence or authority of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, … he shall be guilty of felony and shall … be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years …"
The printers to whom the printing was delegated in the case of statutory instruments obviously claim to have an authority that the Stationery Office could not possibly give them, or at least may not possibly have been able to give them. So I wonder if Section 3 of the Documentary Evidence Act should also not have been referred to in addition to the Act of 1946. But there clearly cannot be any objection to the Bill itself. It is perhaps somewhat doubtful whether one can really take the view of the noble Earl that this has nothing whatever to do with privatisation because clearly until this muddle is cleared up, it will be an embarrassment to anyone who takes over the Stationery Office.
On the issue of privatisation, I should like to add three extremely brief points to the rather impressive speech on this subject made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, it does seem to me, in a nutshell, essential that a government should have control over their own printing—something which is so vital to many of their activities. To release total control of the printing seems an extremely rash act.
Secondly in the debate in another place it is very significant that one of the speeches made against the Bill by one of the Members of the Government party was made by Mr. Robert Jackson who was the Minister in charge of the Stationery Office. He says that on two occasions he looked at the question of privatisation and the idea was rejected, for some of the reasons which I think I have given.
Thirdly, the most important and ostensible reason given for privatisation is to release the Stationery Office from the restrictions on borrowing. The restrictions on borrowing, as a result of the way in which the matter is treated under the public sector borrowing requirement should be looked at again. This is not something which only restricts the commercial operations of the Stationery Office, or might do so, but it is a very serious restriction on other publicly-owned trading companies and other bodies. It is an important and embarrassing restriction on British Nuclear Fuels, on the Post Office and on the BBC. I think it should be looked at again on its own merits. One should not simply say privatise because this is a restriction which we must get rid of.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. Despite all that has been said, I hope that the House will appreciate the importance of this measure. I also hope that I have no need to repeat what I said a few minutes ago. The measure will ensure

821
that the courts are free of doubt on the status of copies of statutory instruments. It will ensure that HMSO can continue to offer such copies at the lowest possible cover price. Failure of the Bill will have the opposite result; it would obstruct the courts and would push up the cover price of SIs. I hope that at the very least noble Lords will appreciate that it is in no one's interest to allow either of those results to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, sought to question my assurance that the Bill has no bearing on the Government's plans to privatise HMSO. He also sought to accuse the Government of inconsistency in what they have said on the matter. Perhaps I may emphasise that there is no connection between this Bill and our plans for privatisation. There is an urgent need for the Bill to be passed and the reasons for that are unconnected with the sale.
The Government reviewed HMSO's statutory functions in detail and uncovered the current anomaly in the law and in HMSO's compliance with it. The Government have taken detailed legal advice and have concluded that legislation is the best course to correct the position and to place the status of existing copies of SIs beyond doubt. That is the long and the short of it; there is nothing further to be said. The measure is not necessary for privatisation for all the reasons that I have explained. It would be perfectly possible to continue without the Bill, but the effects would be as I have stated, which would not be desirable.
Notwithstanding all that, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rehearsed his objections to the privatisation plans. I would simply say that HMSO is facing a difficult situation. Despite successfully struggling to meet the demands made of it, it is a business in decline. Its future in the public sector would be bleak. The core market is shrinking and unless action is taken, HMSO's ability to offer its customers good value for money will be eroded.
During the past 15 years HMSO's annual turnover has risen from £260 million to £359 million, but in order to have kept pace with inflation it would have had to have reached £523 million. In order to avoid unfair competition, HMSO has been prevented from competing for private-sector work. But even on its home ground, the public-sector market, it averages only an 8 per cent. market share. HMSO is under increasing pressure in public-sector markets as customers are looking for better deals from their private-sector competitors. Why should they not do so? However, that is background and it is why I have no doubt that those to whom the noble Lord has spoken have rightly referred to their wish to expand their public-sector work. That is a laudable objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that the Government should re-advertise for more bidders. In fact, the bids which we have received are of a high quality. I believe that all of them demonstrate a real commitment to the business. A re-advertisement would do no more than prolong the uncertainty to which HMSO and its staff have been subjected, and I cannot see that that would be desirable.
Bidders plan to invest in the future development of HMSO. I understand that the trade unions are receiving presentations from the various bidders tomorrow, when
822
no doubt the plans for investment will be explained in as much detail as is proper at this stage. I have no doubt that those bidders want to consolidate the current business in the public sector before expanding into the private sector. They want to ensure that current public-sector customers receive a first-class service. As I said in the debate in this House some months ago, that is a natural objective for them. Without satisfied customers, they would be in danger of losing the business. The matter works two ways.
As regards redundancies, a significant number are already pencilled in in HMSO's current business plans. However, I believe that if we are looking to protect jobs, the best long-term future for employment is with privatisation. With HMSO in its present form, the downward spiral looks set only to continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to Section 3 of the Documentary Evidence Act 1882. There was no force purporting to be acting under superintendence and authority of HMSO. That, on general principles, would require actual knowledge by the printer that he had no authority from HMSO. The printer was entitled to assume that HMSO could give the authority. Therefore, I am not sure that the noble Lord's point was well founded. The retrospective element of the Bill also puts right any doubt that there may have been as regards any question of an offence under Section 3. There is no need for further provision.
The Bill closes a loophole and puts the law beyond doubt. I repeat that there is no impact on privatisation. The sale will continue to completion regardless of the passage of this Bill.
The Bill is the only way to resolve what could become a serious problem. I believe that it is a non-contentious measure which I hope noble Lords on all sides will support. Its urgent passage is essential for the efficient administration of justice—and I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said on that point—and to control the cost of public access to the text of secondary legislation. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill its wholehearted support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to with amendments; with one amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof; with further amendments disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement; and with the remaining amendments agreed to. Commons amendments and Reason ordered to be printed.

Belfast Charitable Society Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Terms and Conditions of Service
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Terms and Conditions of Service
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Public Discussion of Prison Policy
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Public Discussion of Prison Policy
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Annual Report
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Annual Report
  Identity Cards within the EU
  Identity Cards within the EU
  Identity Cards: Government Decision
  Identity Cards: Government Decision
  Israel: Weapons Export Control Regimes
  Israel: Weapons Export Control Regimes
  Bosnia: Foreign Islamic Personnel
  Bosnia: Foreign Islamic Personnel
  Scott Report: Appendices
  Scott Report: Appendices
  Arbitration: Model Law
  Arbitration: Model Law
  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency
  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency
  Ordnance Survey Strategic Plan 1996–2001
  Ordnance Survey Strategic Plan 1996–2001
  Child Support: Draft Regulations
  Child Support: Draft Regulations
  National Insurance Numbers: Fraud
  National Insurance Numbers: Fraud
  Spanish in Schools
  Spanish in Schools
  Equal Opportunities Policy within EOC
  Equal Opportunities Policy within EOC
  EOC: Gender Mix
  EOC: Gender Mix
  Iraqi Chemical Weapons: Destruction of Bunkers in 1991
  Iraqi Chemical Weapons: Destruction of Bunkers in 1991
  Greenwich: Maintenance of Naval Connection
  Greenwich: Maintenance of Naval Connection
  HMSO: Preferred Bidder
  HMSO: Preferred Bidder
  EU Programmes to Discourage Use of Tobacco
  EU Programmes to Discourage Use of Tobacco
  West Coast Main Line: Upgrading
  West Coast Main Line: Upgrading
  InterCity West Coast Trains
  InterCity West Coast Trains
  British Beef: Import Restrictions by US, Hong Kong and Australia
  British Beef: Import Restrictions by US, Hong Kong and Australia
  Building Standards: Harmonisation between Scotland and England and Wales
  Building Standards: Harmonisation between Scotland and England and Wales
  Sentencing of Persons Twice Convicted of Rape: Parole Board Views
  Sentencing of Persons Twice Convicted of Rape: Parole Board Views
  Supreme Court of Scotland: Appointment of Judges
  Supreme Court of Scotland: Appointment of Judges